| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. James: Indeed, but "this area" implies the place where they are standing. I wonder how they have the time. They are not so keen to say—
Mr. Crabb: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. James: No, I want to finish my speech.
We need a clear protocol for how people describe themselves, how they introduce themselves and what they represent. I ask only for clarity.
9.32 pm
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): My comments will be brief. I have three essential points, but I begin by pointing out that I have always believed that devolution is about partnership—between Cardiff and London and between the National Assembly for Wales and Westminster. That is the essence of the concept of devolution and it is certainly behind the Bill, which I hope will soon become an Act.
The first of my three points is that we are taking a positive step forward when we talk about an end to the corporate status of the Assembly, and I am glad there is consensus behind that. If we cast our minds back and are honest, we realise that much of the thinking behind the vision of the Assembly in 1996 and 1997 was that it would be representative of inclusive politics in Wales; that all politicians would get together, sink their differences and push forward for a national goal.
That was wrong. It was a myth and we have learned from it. We realise that if we are to have a proper legislative body, we must have a clearly defined Government accountable to the Assembly as a whole. That is fully recognised by all parties in the House and forms the basis of the Bill.
We must also recognise that there will be consequences for the organisation of the Assembly. If we are not to have more Assembly Members—I am glad that we are not—Back-Bench AMs will have to take on greater responsibility for ensuring proper accountability and scrutiny. That is why, as the Presiding Officer has said, we need a review of the hours worked by the Assembly and there should be greater responsibility on the shoulders of Back Benchers.
9 Jan 2006 : Column 117
The second point that I want to make relates to the emotive issue of the changes proposed to the electoral system. I want to make it absolutely clear that I see no advantage for the Labour party in the changes proposed by the Government. It is interesting that Opposition Members have made no argument in favour of that assertion whatsoever. If the changes come about, they will enhance the Assembly's credibility and introduce a fundamental moral fairness that simply says that losers cannot be winners as well. It is as simple as that. When we talk to people in the street about electoral systems—if we can engage them in that discussion—all those to whom I have spoken accept that basic, fundamental democratic premise. Scholarly work is not needed to analyse that; simply talk to ordinary people and they recognise the inherent fairness in the Government's proposal. We must always listen to the people. That is the essence of democracy.
The third and final point that I want to make relates to the Assembly's powers. The proposal for Orders in Council is a sensible and pragmatic way forward. It is entirely in line with the partnership principle that I spoke about earlier. If we make that seismic shift towards having legislative powers, it is incumbent on us to say that the people should be consulted in a fully fledged referendum.
With those three points, I very much hope that the Bill will be endorsed on Second Reading. It will be sensible and constructive legislation. It will take democracy and the Assembly forward, and it will help to create a better United Kingdom.
9.36 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): It has been a pleasure to participate in the debate. I well remember the original Government of Wales Bill, and I spent many hours in the House considering it, as I did with the Scotland Bill, during my first year in Parliament. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) is right to suggest that it was thought that such legislation would usher in a new, inclusive form of politics. Indeed, the word "holistic" was bandied about the Chamber so much that I began to think that it was almost a term of abuse. It is worth bearing that in mind, because now that we revisit the matter eight years later, we must be careful not to commit similar mistakes again.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who said that we should be careful about getting too bogged down in constitutional dogma and that what people want are better services and more accountability. I accept that argument, but equally, as I am sure he will have noted from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), there are consequences of devolution, particularly in inequality of service provision, that cannot simply be lightly disregarded on cross-border issues.
As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), dislike of the Assembly's failings and inefficiencies is a phenomenon in Wales, just as there are those who approve of the way that it has operated. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) pointed out that there appears to be no consensus on what further form legislative devolution should take—something that was ultimately
9 Jan 2006 : Column 118
acknowledged by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I certainly suspect that my cousins in north Wales who have farmed in the Clwydian range for a very long time would heartily wish to see the Assembly disappear, but they are as Welsh as any of the Labour Members who have spoken. That happens to be their view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) pointed out that only 25 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Assembly in the first place. With that in mind, we must approach the question of how the Assembly can be improved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made clear at the outset, we want to try to make the Assembly work well. We accept that some provisions in the Bill are long overdue, particularly the separation of the Executive and the legislature, which perhaps reflects the end of inclusivity. Indeed, in so far as the Government wish to put a referendum to the Welsh people about whether they want primary legislative powers for their Assembly, one cannot possibly disagree with asking that question even if one has reservations about the proposals. The problem, however, is that that is not the main part of the Bill, and certainly not the main part of the Bill as it will ultimately affect the majority of people in Wales in the short-term future.
What the Government plan to do is rather surprising. When we debated the first Government of Wales Bill, one of the arguments put forward was that the rise in the use of statutory instruments as a form of governance in this country meant that there was a growing disconnection between Parliament and those being governed, and that one of the ways of dealing with that problem in the Welsh context was to enable the Assembly to be the implementers of statutory instruments. Of course, it was to be denied primary legislation. However, the Government's proposals in this Bill are a Minister's dream. They will take the remaining areas of primary legislation and convert them into a form of statutory instrument over which the House effectively abdicates all responsibility.
There is a purpose behind primary legislation, which we do not do very well in the House any more. That is one of the reasons why we have the debates about devolution. If we were not so absurdly guillotined when we are in Committee—the point applies not just to this Bill, but to all the legislation that we consider—the process of debate would enable proper scrutiny to take place. Over the past eight years, we have seen time and again the Government's desire to cut that scrutiny, but now they suddenly come along and say that it does not matter because they are going to cut it down even further and hand it over by diktat of the Secretary of State, with massive reserve powers for the Executive, to the Welsh Assembly, which will be a substitute for the scrutiny that this House will not provide.
I say to the Secretary of State that that is a serious constitutional innovation and change. If that is the way that the Government wish to proceed, and if they believe that it is the future—the approach could be applied not just to the Welsh Assembly, but to regional bodies, the London assembly or any other form of government—this must be an issue on which the public are consulted first. There are serious implications and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) highlighted
9 Jan 2006 : Column 119
the problems that can flow from devolution, in terms both of the uncoupling of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom and of the quality of government that people receive.
Mr. Hain: What precise question would the hon. Gentleman ask people in the referendum?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |