---

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman touches on a very important point about scrutiny by the National Assembly. Is not the fact that it sits only two to three days a week one of its downfalls? Would it not be better to extend its sittings? Of course, if that happened the hon. Gentleman would be in a very uncomfortable position, because he would have to stay there to scrutinise such legislation, rather than being here. Would he be prepared to give up his dual mandate for the sake of better legislation in the National Assembly?

David T.C. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am doing what the Government of Wales Bill
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 87
 
allows me to do. Perhaps he should have foreseen the possibility of people winning in two places; indeed, many did: many Labour Members of Parliament went on to become Labour Assembly Members. I shall deal with the question of the number of days that the Assembly sits in a moment, if he will allow me. In my opinion it would be completely unconstitutional and undemocratic to overturn the wishes of the people of Wales, who in a referendum clearly voted for an Assembly, not for a Parliament.

I turn briefly to two other aspects of the Bill. One of the issues that was raised in relation to the number of days that the Assembly sits is very important. We all agree on the proposed splitting of the Executive from the legislature. It was also suggested that another 20 Assembly Members might be required, because such splitting would mean the removal of Assembly Ministers from the Assembly's scrutiny committees. I have grave concerns about that idea. I do not believe that the answer to the problems caused by this legislation is more Assembly Members—another 20 people drawing their salaries. I have some sympathy with the point just made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). If there is a problem with the level of scrutiny in the Assembly, the scrutiny committees should be merged and more properly focused on the job to be done. Or, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn suggests, Assembly Members could consider the revolutionary idea of meeting more than two afternoons a week. If they decide to do that, I will put myself wherever I can be of most use to my constituents.

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution and I can see why his electors return him to the Assembly and to this House. Does he agree that it is ironic that the Government should bring forward proposals to change the legislative competence of the Assembly when it still has so much bedding down to do? Does he further agree that, after the 2007 election, it should absorb the changes by splitting off the Executive from the legislature long before it is given more powers? Does he agree that the management of the process is very poor?

David T.C. Davies: I fully agree with my hon. Friend, as I do on most matters that relate to devolution—[Hon. Members: "Most?"] In fact, on virtually all matters, there is barely a cigarette paper to be put between us. My hon. Friend's point about allowing the Assembly to settle down is important. We had the referendum only seven years ago and the question that we should be addressing is that we have a Parliament in Scotland, an Assembly in Wales and a power-sharing arrangement in Northern Ireland, but nothing at all for the largest constituent part of the United Kingdom. That is the real problem that we have with the constitution at present, and that is what we should address.

The changes to the voting system are being made for only one reason, and we all know that. They are being made for the benefit of the Wales Labour party. That is the only possible reason for the changes, and I thought that the flimsy excuses about Assembly Members who were worried because someone had opened an office in their constituency were pathetic. It has been my
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 88
 
experience that whenever people want to protest about anything, the first person they go to is their constituency Member of Parliament and the second person is their constituency Assembly Member. Only if they meet with no luck from either will they find out who their regional list Members are. What is really annoying the Labour Assembly Members is not that they are at some sort of electoral disadvantage, but that they have lost the huge advantage that comes with incumbency. That must be making many of them very worried.

Mark Tami: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but is it not the same old argument that additional list Members should not be given the same staffing and office costs allowances as properly elected Members?

David T.C. Davies: There is a huge argument to be had about the relative merits of all sorts of different proportional representation systems, but we should not have a governing party using its majority to push forward changes from which it will gain electoral benefit. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) was right to say that PR is not an issue on the omnibuses of Merthyr Tydfil, in the hostelries of Monmouthshire or in the supermarkets of Cardiff. Nobody is interested in proportional representation and the Government will get away scot-free. But everyone in this Chamber who knows about PR knows why the Government are doing this, and the Electoral Commission knows why they are doing it. It is a great shame that the sort of tricks that we might have seen in South Africa in the 1970s to prop up a failing regime are being imported into south Wales.

I was delighted to stand against the original proposals for the Welsh Assembly. I can see that it has had some advantages in terms of openness, but those advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages. We have caused enormous damage to the UK which will result in our having to return to legislation in a few years' time. We have also possibly unleashed the lion of English nationalism.

I am proud to be Welsh. I am also proud to be British, to be a Conservative and to be a Unionist. That is why we reject the proposals in the Bill.

7.44 pm

Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): The person who did most to deliver devolution in the United Kingdom was Margaret Thatcher. She alienated the people of Wales and Scotland so profoundly that she created the circumstances in 1997 that led to the setting up of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. We know from history that devolution referendums had been held before and had been unsuccessful. It was only because the Conservatives alienated people in Scotland and Wales so much by the manner in which they ran their Government between 1979 and 1997 that devolution was ever established.

Mr. Evans : The hon. Gentleman sets a dangerous precedent with his argument. Does he not appreciate that even at the last general election the Labour party lost to the Conservatives as a percentage of the vote? The valid point was made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that resentment will
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 89
 
grow in England because Scotland has a Parliament and Wales has an Assembly, now with increased powers. The only part of the UK that has been totally ignored is England.

Ian Lucas: I am very conscious of the relationship between England and Wales, England and Scotland, and England and the UK, because of the nature and position of my constituency, which I discuss regularly in the Chamber and will touch on in my speech. We have made progress with referendums on a regional basis. We had had approaching eight years of Labour Government before the referendum in the north-east. In those circumstances, the people said no. They said, "We've got a Labour Government, so what do we need an assembly for?" The position would have been different if the north-east had been asked that question in 1997.

I wish to discuss two main aspects of the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Bill recognises the continued place of Wales within the UK. That is extremely important, and not only for constitutional reasons. The constituents in my border constituency see an integral relationship between England and Wales. The relationship exists not only in the private sector, where many of my constituents live and work on both sides of the border—and cross the border every day in the course of their lives—but also exists in the provision of public services. We had discussions late last year about the reorganisation of police services in Wales and they included much discussion of the close links between north-west England and north Wales in the operation of "criminal markets", as they were called by chief constable Denis O'Connor. It is important that the links are recognised so that the public services can address the issues correctly.

Health services are also provided by north-west England to north Wales. There are also close links between probation and prison services, because there are no prisons or youth custody centres in north Wales. It is important for north Wales, as distinct from south Wales, that there is a close working relationship between north-west England and north Wales. That is about the delivery of public services.

Daniel Kawczynski : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Welsh citizens are to use services across the border in England, their local authorities should pay the going rate, rather than being subsidised by English taxpayers?

---