---

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is describing particular circumstances. I do not agree with what he said earlier about linking waiting times to the price of operations, because I do not think that it was factually correct. I do not know the particular circumstances that he mentions, so I cannot address that question. It is extremely important that public services are still delivered to my constituents from England.

We also need a continued role for Westminster in legislation affecting Wales. In the context of any proposals for primary legislation for the Assembly in Cardiff, we must have provision for a referendum and I profoundly welcome this Bill and the guarantee that it contains. Furthermore, although the process set out in the Bill is novel, it will produce better legislation for the
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 90
 
people of Wales. One thing that the Assembly has brought Wales is closer access for voluntary organisations, individuals and local government to its workings. Through joint Committees of AMs and MPs, there has been real progress in making better legislation for Wales, which brings benefits from the institution—the Assembly—being closer to the people of Wales, while taking into account the fact that in areas such as mine public services are also provided from across the border. Individuals thus benefit from having their views expressed by their Member of Parliament in this place.

Mr. David Jones: The hon. Gentleman refers to the fact that the Assembly is less remote from the people, but does he agree that there is a particular concern in north Wales that Cardiff seems geographically and spiritually remote from the people of north Wales, so does he share my concern that the North Wales Regional Committee does not figure in the new legislation and that it has in fact been abolished?

Ian Lucas: I am not sure that the North Wales Regional Committee, as it currently functions, is the most effective way of integrating north Wales more closely with the operations of the Assembly. I believe in more devolution. Wales is a nation with different regions and they should have more control over their affairs.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill does not propose to do away with the regional committee, but does he agree that regional buildings would be helpful? Scrutiny committees would be closer to the people, so that people in remote areas such as north Wales and on the periphery could witness the Chamber in progress as it examined legislation.

Ian Lucas: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is a great disappointment to me that no Assembly offices are based in Wrexham, the biggest town in north Wales. I hoped that the Assembly would have done more to bring offices to different parts of Wales—and, indeed, to bring more business to those areas.

My second essential point was about the proposed provisions relating to the electorate and changes to the electoral system. I strongly support the proposal to disallow regional list Members from standing for constituencies. I would like the Bill to go further. Under the present Assembly electoral system, we have two votes. At the last Assembly election, I was able to vote for the Labour Assembly candidate in my constituency and on the regional list.

Mr. Evans: He lost.

Ian Lucas: Yes, that is correct. My regional constituency candidate lost, yet the strange thing is that the largest party at the Assembly election for the north Wales region was Labour, which gained 55,000 votes from individuals such as me—more than any other party in north Wales—but on the regional list, the Labour party gained no Members at all.

Mr. David Jones: It is called proportional representation.

Ian Lucas: It is called defrauding the electorate; it is called wasted votes—something about which the
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 91
 
Liberal Democrats have a lot to tell us. In 2003, they talked about wasted votes in their election literature, which I have with me. They said:

"If enough Labour voters switch to the Welsh Lib Dems with their 2nd vote, we can have a Tory Free Wales . . . Our region has 2 Tory AMs. Don't waste your 2nd Vote—Back the Welsh Liberal Democrats to beat the Tories!"

I thought about that and it was true. I voted for Labour because it is my party, but I wasted my second vote and so did 55,000 other people in north Wales. We have an electoral system that is defrauding the people of north Wales and a political party that wants to exploit their views by trying to suggest that they should not vote for the party in which they believe. That is dishonest. That is gerrymandering and it should not be allowed.

Mrs. Gillan: I should have so much more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, and would share his views, if the system were not one that his party brought in. I do not understand how Members on his Front Bench can ignore his strongly held views, but it was the Labour party's mechanism that was introduced.

Ian Lucas: I understand that point. I am expressing my views to my Front-Bench colleagues and I am sure that they are listening to them carefully. The same views have been expressed by other Labour Back Benchers today and I am sure that they will also be listened to carefully.

There have been many accusations today from Opposition parties about Labour party gerrymandering, yet the Labour party is the only party to create an electoral system that disadvantages it. That is exactly what it did in 1999 when it set up the Assembly and allowed the introduction of proportional representation. It sent the Tories a lifeboat and a lifebelt. It gave the Liberal Democrats more representation than they had ever had and it helped out the nationalists. Our party is generous in its electoral system.

Opposition parties have produced no evidence whatever that the modest proposal in the Bill would assist the Labour party. In north Wales, three of our candidates with extremely marginal seats will not have the lifebelt that the Labour party generously offered Opposition parties. They should not lecture us about gerrymandering. They should thank us for the resurrection of their political parties.

7.57 pm

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate on the developing devolution situation in Wales. Unfortunately, the last time that the House considered devolution legislation I was not a Member, but I was interested in the way that the procedure was handled.

It has correctly been pointed out that the referendum on setting up an Assembly was won only marginally. I could not get very enthused about the proposal. I did not think that it would capture the imagination of the Welsh people because it did not go far enough. One of the reasons why turnout in the 1997 referendum was so low was that the prospect for devolution in Wales was much less than for devolution in Scotland.
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 92
 

The Bill will push forward the powers of the Welsh Assembly, which will appeal to the people of Wales, but it could be much better done. It seems illogical to give the Assembly powers to deliver health and education and to be responsible for local government, yet not to give it the necessary primary legislative powers to promote those services in Wales.

Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also illogical to have established the Welsh Assembly on the referendum and then to try to alter that settlement without asking the people of Wales? Surely that would be a sensible and logical thing to do. Why are the Government and the Liberal Democrats afraid to ask the people of Wales about extra powers?

Mr. Williams: A referendum is not necessary. Although the Assembly is very unpopular in Wales from time to time—indeed, people blame it for many of the ills of Wales—that is a misrepresentation because the National Assembly Government are responsible for the delivery of services and it is they whom the people should criticise. In fact, one of the plus points of the Bill is the separation of the Executive and the legislature. The people of Wales will better understand the way that the Assembly works and they will be brought closer to the Assembly.

When I travel around Wales, I get the feeling that the National Assembly Government, Powys county council, Westminster and the European Parliament are not very popular. It is very difficult to have a legislature that is popular, but that does not necessarily mean that the people of Wales want to get rid of the Assembly. In my view, they want to promote the Assembly's powers so that it can better deal with the problems faced by the people and the nation of Wales.

I have never thought of devolution as a system for becoming insular and apart from the United Kingdom. I believe that devolution is about developing systems to deliver services that are best suited to the area, and that those systems can be shared with other regions and nations in the United Kingdom so that they benefit as well. I was a little disappointed when the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) almost insinuated that people must be Conservatives to be Unionists or that people could not support devolution and be Unionists. I certainly am a Unionist, and I believe in the United Kingdom, which, by its very nature, is more than one nation—something that we should all bear in mind.

Welsh Liberal Democrats have always been a pro-devolution party, and we have consistently argued for a Welsh Senedd—we did so before 1998, and we do so today. We support a way forward that gives Wales more governance and more control over its own future, but, above all, good governance. Our party wholeheartedly endorses the recommendations of the Richard commission, which was effectively the most comprehensive constitutional consultation that was ever carried out in Wales. We support Lord Richard's view that Wales deserves a status equal to Scotland's, with powers over primary legislation, and that a larger Assembly of 80 Members is needed to cope with those extended powers. All the Members should be elected using a single-transferable-vote system.

Listening to the hon. Member for Monmouth and considering the difficulties that the Assembly may face in dealing with further legislation, it seems to me that the
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 93
 
experience of the Scottish Parliament should be taken into consideration. With in excess of 120 Members, they find that all their committee time is taken up with legislation and that it is very difficult to carry out the necessary scrutiny and policy development.

Of course, it is typical of the Government to embark on a lengthy and costly consultation at taxpayers' expense only to ignore the expert advice. Such things can be said of the current consultation on the restructuring of the police force in Wales.

---