Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

House of Commons, 9 January 2006.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

May I express the House's condolences to the family of Lord Merlyn-Rees, who sadly died recently? He was a proud Welshman and perhaps one of the leading Welsh parliamentarians of his generation. The House remembers him with great affection.

The House also remembers my friend and fellow Chelsea fan, Tony Banks, whose sparkle lit up public life. We express our sympathy to his wife, Sally, and share the anguish of his family and his many friends at his sudden and shocking death.

I am sure that hon. Members will join me in expressing our sympathy and condolences to the families of the cyclists involved in the appalling accident in Abergele, which left carnage on the roads. I have asked for a report from the chief constable, which many hon. Members want to see, too.

I welcome the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to her new role as shadow Welsh Secretary. I last sparred with her across the Dispatch Box when I was at the Foreign Office, and I look forward to doing so again.

It is now more than eight years since the people of Wales voted to establish the National Assembly for Wales, and I was proud to help lead that referendum campaign to bring long-needed devolution to Wales. Despite predictions to the contrary from our opponents, devolution has proved a success. When the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is now back on the Opposition Front Bench, was Secretary of State for Wales, he said that he did

"not think that it would do the people of Wales any favours to create separate and divisive constitutional arrangements."—[Official Report, 18 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 12.]

When he was Leader of the Opposition, he declared the Conservative party to be

"one hundred per cent. against these disastrous ideas of having a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly."

In practice, however, devolution has strengthened the Union, not weakened it.

Indeed, separatism has waned in Wales since the Assembly was established. Welsh independence is now seen as outdated and eccentric, whereas without the prospect of devolutionary reform from 1997, it could have gained momentum in a backlash against the over-centralisation of successive Conservative Governments. Many of my hon. Friends will, like me, recall the intense reaction in Wales against what I call "Redwooditis", which helped to turn the 4:1 defeat for devolution in the 1979 referendum into a victory in 1997. If there had not been a change of Government and if devolution had not been instituted, it is quite possible that the flame of separatism could have become a conflagration, instead of which it has been snuffed out. Devolution is helping to generate a new maturity in Welsh politics in which decisions affecting Wales are made in Wales by elected representatives who are accountable to the people of Wales. Just blaming London for policy shortcomings or failures no longer holds water—since 1999 the buck has stopped in Cardiff bay.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

The Secretary of State appears to be telling us that devolution was not about giving more power to the people of Wales and that it was merely a cunning plan to defeat Welsh nationalism. Is that what he is really saying?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

What I am really saying is that the false and specious charges made at that time by the Conservative party, including the hon. Gentleman, have proved groundless. The Conservatives said that devolution would result in the break-up of the United Kingdom and in independence and separatism gaining momentum. On the contrary, devolution has strengthened unity in the United Kingdom among the Welsh, the English and the Scots.

In introducing the Bill, I am proud to carry forward a Labour tradition that goes back to the days of our first Welsh Member, who was a founder of our party, our first leader and a passionate supporter of devolution—Keir Hardie. More than half a century later, it was Labour that first created the Cabinet post of Secretary of State for Wales in 1964 and started the process of extending the responsibilities of the then Welsh Office so that it gained more and more power over matters affecting Wales. It was Labour that was elected in 1997 on a manifesto commitment to give the people of Wales an opportunity to vote for a new democratic Assembly; Labour that led the yes campaign to victory in the 1997 referendum; and Labour, after two successive elections, that has successfully led the people of Wales under the new devolved settlement. Labour was always the real party of devolution, decentralisation and bringing decision making closer to the people. This Bill confirms that Labour still is that party.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

If it is good enough for the Welsh people to have devolution and power over their own decisions, and for Scottish people to have Members of the Scottish Parliament to make decisions on their behalf, why is it not good enough for people who live in England?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I have always favoured regional government in England, and I think that its time will come.

Instead of new conflicts predicted by Conservatives and other critics, devolution has brought Wales new confidence—anybody visiting Cardiff bay can sense that in the millennium centre and in the iconic new Assembly building, which will attract architectural interest worldwide. Global companies such as Airbus, General Dynamics and Logica CMG—all leaders in their sectors—have chosen Wales as their base over other British and European locations. That is testimony to the fact that Wales is no longer seen as a branch office for multinational companies. The Welsh economy has never been in better shape, with more jobs and prosperity than ever before and strong business growth. In an era of fierce global competition, Wales has been performing better than many economies across the world that have traditionally been our envy.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Part 5 of the Bill deals with financial aspects, including the creation of a Welsh Consolidated Fund. Would it not be wise, in the light of the immense progress that has been made as a result of our Government's policies on Wales, to find a way of equalising the treatment of regions in England that are comparable with Wales in relation to the Barnett formula? Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire have almost identical populations to Wales, as well as a very similar social and economic mix, but our treatment as regards Government-distributed funds is less generous.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I applaud my hon. Friend for standing up for his constituents and vigorously making a case on their behalf. Nevertheless, the Barnett formula has served the whole United Kingdom very effectively, and the Government have no plans to change it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Minister will be aware that Lord Barnett, the instigator of the Barnett formula, feels embarrassed that it still bears his name and thinks that it should be changed. Why does he ignore the advice of the inventor of the formula that he seeks to defend, refuse to create a needs-based formula, and stick to an arcane formula that its inventor says is out of date?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman has quoted Lord Barnett accurately. However, the Government have taken a careful look at the whole matter, and no advantage would be gained by reopening the question of the Barnett formula.

Devolution has meant that people now feel a closer involvement in decisions—on education, the health service, housing, transport and business support—that affect their lives. People feel that Welsh Ministers are more accessible, because they are, and that their voice can be heard more directly by decision makers, because it is. The National Assembly for Wales has become an accepted part of the political landscape.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

It is undoubtedly true that one of the successes of the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government, for which they have been praised, has been the way in which they have listened to and consulted various parts of the community, particularly the voluntary and public sectors. That is as it should be. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Bill has a role to play in strengthening the voice of the private sector, because economic prosperity and improving standards of life for people in Wales also depend on the private sector pulling its weight and having its voice heard?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the crucial role of business and the private sector in Wales's economic success. The Assembly—I know this because I have discussed it with the First Minister—will want to maintain the closest co-operation and consultation. There is in the legislation, as there was uniquely in the previous Act—I was responsible for accepting an amendment that resulted in the clause—a duty to consult business. That duty remains. If my hon. Friend wishes to make any detailed points about strengthening it, I shall look at them sympathetically.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am not here to fight old battles, but neither am I here to listen to history being rewritten. Why is the Secretary of State glorifying what he thinks are the Welsh Assembly's achievements when he knows that only one in four Welsh people voted for it in the referendum? He is talking about the voice of the people of Wales and their feeling closer to the Welsh Assembly, but he knows that at the last Assembly elections the turnout was miserable. What is he going to do to reconnect the Welsh Assembly with the Welsh people?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman knows, turnout in all elections in Britain has been falling over the past few years and, arguably, since the second world war, and that includes the elections for the Welsh Assembly. I am not clear from the earlier part of his question—perhaps the shadow Secretary of State will respond to this later—whether he is trying to turn back the clock. The Conservatives fought and lost that referendum.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Only just.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

There speaks the true voice of the Tory party, and we see that from the reasoned amendment. The Tories have not really learned the lessons. They lost the argument on devolution, and they should accept that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The right hon. Gentleman referred to Members of the Welsh Assembly being in close touch with their constituents. Why are Welsh health outcomes so much worse despite much more expenditure than in England?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman will know that levels of ill health and industrial disability as a result of our industrial legacy of mining and heavy industry, which are proportionately far higher in Wales than elsewhere, have been responsible for the problem that we have had to tackle. He will also know that performance right across the health service has been improving rapidly, especially over the past year, as waiting times have come down from their appalling levels and from the even more appalling levels that we inherited from the Conservatives.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Given that the Secretary of State has been celebrating the merits of devolution, how does he explain and justify clause 113, which gives him a power to intervene in certain cases with the introduction of secondary legislation? In those incidences, will such legislation be subject to the negative procedure or to its affirmative counterpart, and if it is the former, why?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the impenetrable nature of that question. Fortunately, I understand it. I have kept that power in order to protect Parliament's interests. Prior to, and in some cases even subsequent to, the full devolution of primary powers which is provided for in the Bill subject to a referendum, it is important to ensure that what Parliament decides is carried out. If there were any attempt by the Assembly not to do that, I would have a residual power to check it.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Very centralising.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The shadow Attorney-General mutters from a sedentary position that that is very centralising, but it is very much in tune with the settlement endorsed by the people of Wales, which puts Parliament in charge and allows the Assembly to have extra powers—

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am happy to give way, but I am not clear who is speaking for the Conservatives from the Front Bench. The shadow Welsh Secretary is welcome to intervene on me. If the shadow Attorney-General wants to do her job for her, I am happy to have him do it.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The Secretary of State says that the proposal is in tune with the people of Wales and with democratic principles, but that is the very thing that the Bill is not, because it provides a mechanism for Government by Orders in Council, bypassing the scrutiny of this House and doing so without asking the Welsh people whether that is the system that they wish to have. Would he please address that issue, because it is fundamental?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I will do so with great enthusiasm. There is the Conservative party seeking to speak with a modern, consensual voice in the language and rhetoric of its new leader, but actually returning to the old anti-devolution, anti-Wales, anti-Welsh Assembly politics.

Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman's point by quoting the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Nick Bourne. He said:

"I think we have at the moment an insecure settlement which cannot persist.

We either need to move forward to legislative powers or abolish the assembly and I think that's not an option. We've got to see how we can move things forward and that's got to mean legislative powers."

He was accepting the need for new powers, whereas it appears that Conservative Front Benchers do not want to do that.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The Secretary of State clearly did not listen to what I said to him. I did not suggest that there was anything undemocratic about devolving further powers to the Welsh Assembly. If the Government wish to give the Welsh Assembly primary legislative functions—for which they provide in the Bill— they can do so, if they can secure the approval of the Welsh people by referendum. But that is not what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. The most important part of it is about bypassing, ultimately, both the Assembly and this place to govern by Order in Council. What is the democratic justification for such an extraordinary system?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I realise that the hon. Gentleman is not a Welsh Member of Parliament, but he clearly does not understand the Bill. The Bill provides for Parliament to be in charge, just as it is now. Instead of providing for the devolving of powers to the Assembly through primary legislation, it provides an opportunity to devolve powers to the Assembly through Orders in Council—subject, as I shall explain, to prior scrutiny. And Conservative Front Benchers propose a referendum on that! What a bizarre, astonishing idea, and one that would cost £7 million.

Can the hon. Gentleman imagine asking local people on their doorsteps, "Do you want to vote yes or no on whether measures should be decided through primary legislation or through Orders in Council?"? Can he imagine the response that he would receive?

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great successes of the devolution settlement since 2001 has been the development of consideration of legislation by means of pre-legislative scrutiny through joint committees of the Assembly and the House of Commons? We have heard no call from the Conservatives previously for a referendum to seek the consent of the people of Wales to the procedure that already operates.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That illustrates the absurdity of the Conservative party, whose Front Benchers have contrived to get into a lather about this issue while hiding their anti-devolution, anti-Welsh Assembly, anti-Wales position. They are still the same old Tories.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I think that we should look quite closely at what the Secretary of State proposes in the Bill. Lord Richard has said:

"Let's be frank about it, it is a device to avoid having to come to Westminster and ask for primary powers to be formally devolved . . . you end up with . . . a situation in which Cardiff ends up with greater powers, Westminster can say they have not devolved primary legislative powers".

Is that not what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do? He is trying to keep the Labour party happy at Westminster and the Labour party happy in the Welsh Assembly. He will end up appeasing neither, and cheating the people of Wales.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

So there we have it: the first words spoken from the Dispatch Box by the hon. Lady, with her customary eloquence and courtesy. What did she say? She tried to construct a fantasy argument about Orders in Council versus Bills in the House, both of which are subject to the sovereign will of the House. If Parliament does not want to pass the Orders in Council, it does not have to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made clear, they will—I hope—be subject to a process of prior scrutiny very similar to that which has been applied so successfully to Welsh legislation in recent years.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Will my right hon. Friend note the words of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), whom I, too, welcome to her new role? She was quoted in the Western Mail of 17 December as saying:

"I have said I want to build on what has been achieved with the Assembly."

Does my right hon. Friend see anything in the Opposition's amendment that would build on what has been achieved by the Assembly, or does he suspect that the Opposition are tearing down the whole devolution process?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I suspect that it is exactly the latter. It is a wrecking amendment. The Conservatives, at the first opportunity, are asking us to kill the Bill. They could have achieved a debate, vote and decision on their concerns by tabling three new clauses on a referendum on bringing into force the part 3 Orders in Council, and an amendment to clause 7 on dual candidacy. If they were acting in the spirit of consensus promised by the Leader of the Opposition and echoed by the shadow Secretary of State, that is what they could have done. Instead, they have chosen to try to kill the Bill at the first opportunity; the same old anti-devolution, anti-Welsh conservatives.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

In agreeing with the Secretary of State, may I say that the reasoned amendment is the most unreasonable thing that I have seen in a long time and defies any scrutiny? It is absolute nonsense. On Orders in Council, will the Salisbury convention apply to proposed legislation by whoever governs in Cardiff? Were he, of his own volition, to say that he was not prepared to accept a measure from the National Assembly, should not there be some form of review or appellate procedure within the Bill?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in the first part of his question and asks a reasonable question to follow. If we were to see an unreasonable or anti-Welsh Secretary of State—[Interruption.] If we saw another Secretary of State of the kind that we had in the 1990s before 1997, clearly there could be some tension, but there could be tension now. Under the existing settlement, it is far worse. A Welsh Assembly Government seeking to get an agreement from Parliament to allow it to take extra powers would have to fight for space in the Queen's Speech, so there is a business management obstacle as well as a policy principle one. At least we will now have an hour and a half of debate in the House, providing a much better settlement.

I do not think that any appellate procedure is necessary because, as the hon. Gentleman will note, I have provided up to a maximum of 60 sitting days, including weekends, for a proper explanation to be given by the Secretary of State if he or she is not proceeding with a request. That would be subject to judicial review, providing the necessary safeguards.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Far be it from me to take bread from the mouths of my fellow lawyers, but surely we should put within the Bill a procedure to avoid having to run back and forth to the High Court. Hitherto, the only assurance given in the White Paper is that the Secretary of State, or his successor, should not turn down legislation for a trivial reason. In two or three places in the Bill—clauses 98 and 101, I believe—there are references to the Supreme Court. Could we not put in a form of reference to the Supreme Court to see whether the reason given was reasonable? That would be quicker than going through judicial review and, in my view, far better.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I do not agree, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I shall look closely at what he has said, but his proposal is not necessary. In the end, politics will win the arguments. If we had a Conservative Secretary of State—woe betide Wales were that to happen—and he or she consistently defied the Assembly, the Conservatives would be swept out of Wales at the following general election, as happened in 1997. Also, the hon. Gentleman strengthens my argument, with which I know he agrees. He makes the point that Parliament is in charge of the new procedure, prior to primary powers going following a referendum. The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my arguments against the Conservatives and their opportunistic and specious attempt to attack the Orders in Council proposal.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Is not the Secretary of State making the very point that is salient? He is allowing an anti-devolution Government—a Conservative one, say—to obstruct devolution in Wales. I do not see why the Government insist on providing that weakness in this Bill when they are quite happy to devolve in a one-way fashion in respect of Scotland. Can he explain why he wants the Secretary of State for Wales to be almost a viceroy over Welsh affairs, given that the Government did not feel that such a step was necessary when the Scottish Parliament was introduced?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The days of viceroys ended in 1997; since then, Secretaries of State for Wales have represented Wales and constituencies in Wales, and have spoken for Wales.

On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, he is right to the extent that, under the first stage of giving extra powers, Parliament remains in charge; that is the point that Opposition Front Benchers wish to ignore, or do not understand. The Assembly gets extra powers—measure-making powers, as they are called in the Bill—only if the House so decides. This House is in charge, as is the House of Lords. The point is that the objective of introducing primary powers, which we share in common, has to be endorsed by a referendum. I know that many Liberal Democrats object to that principle, but it is such a fundamental change that a referendum is required; that way, if such a radical departure from the existing settlement were contemplated, it would be endorsed by the people of Wales. However, compared with primary legislation procedure, this Orders-in-Council procedure is not a radical departure from the existing settlement.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

On one side of the argument, the Secretary of State wishes to minimise the changes and to say that the Orders in Council are very trivial; but on the other, he wants the powers to be substantial. Will he confirm that he received a letter from me, dated 21 December, in which I explained in words of one syllable that although I had tabled a reasoned amendment, it should not be interpreted as opposition to every element of the Bill, and that I reassured him that where we have common ground he could expect our support? I hope that he will acknowledge that he received that letter and that he is misrepresenting my position, because I have told him and have given him every indication that I will be supportive where I believe that we have common ground and can work constructively. Otherwise, I think that the Bill deserves detailed scrutiny at every stage.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am sorry that the hon. Lady is wriggling and squirming in respect of her reasoned amendment. The truth is that, notwithstanding the letter that she wrote to me—it is a very nice letter—the amendment rejects the Bill. If the Conservatives were to get their way tonight and marshal enough votes for their amendment in the Aye Lobby, they would kill the Bill and there would be no prospect of extra powers for the Assembly. That is the policy of the new Tory party, the new Cameron Conservatives, in Wales: to kill devolution stone dead here today, Monday 9 January. That is a great shame and I expected more of the hon. Lady. I thought that she would display a pro-Welsh position, as she was at least born in Wales, which is better than her predecessor. [Interruption.] Well, I represent, and was elected by, a Welsh constituency, unlike the hon. Lady.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

The amendment clearly says:

"declines to give a Second Reading".

That is as clear as it can be, is it not?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I realise that the hon. Lady has had a lot of trouble in her early days as shadow Welsh Secretary. She did not know who the Welsh national rugby coach was; she did not know the number of Assembly Members; she did not even know what Brain's beer was. Now, she does not know the terms of her own reasoned amendment, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) suggests, would kill the Bill stone dead.

We need to make some progress in getting more powers for Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government may not be any more admired than any level of government ever is, but they have won widespread praise for introducing innovative and popular policies—the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Welsh baccalaureate, free bus travel for the over-60s and free school breakfasts, for example—some of which have been emulated elsewhere in the United Kingdom. After six years of activity and two full elections, it is right that we should take stock of how the devolution settlement in Wales is working and bring forward practical, commonsense reforms to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the people of Wales.

Much has changed since the House debated the original Government of Wales Bill. The budget of the National Assembly has nearly doubled, and the responsibilities of the Assembly have also increased. In the past 18 months alone, this House has resolved to transfer from Westminster to Cardiff bay a number of important new policy areas: animal welfare, the fire and rescue services, student support and more children's services.

Devolution has not stood still; it has evolved, and through the measures contained in this Bill it will evolve still further. But there is widespread acceptance of the need for reform. The Assembly's corporate status, modelled on local government, was an innovative idea in theory, which has proved less successful in practice. All parties accept the case for change, and the Bill will reform the internal architecture of the Assembly to provide for enhanced democratic accountability.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

My right hon. Friend mentions democratic accountability. One of the reasons the Assembly was set up was to do away with the quango state. Does the Bill contain any provision that will aid that process? Under the present settlement, it is difficult for the Assembly to make Wales more democratic in that way.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

As my hon. Friend knows, the Welsh Assembly Government have already put in train a series of measures abolishing the quangos and absorbing their functions into the Assembly, and they will be able to go further to the extent that the Order in Council procedure gives them more scope. However, they will not be able to do much more under the Bill.

Ian Davidson (Labour, Glasgow South West)

My right hon. Friend may not have been sufficiently bold on the question of democratic accountability. In the second ballot at the last elections, 310,658 Welsh voters voted Labour and got not a single candidate elected. Given that we have already heard that the turnout in the Welsh Assembly elections was low, does not that clearly demonstrate that proportional representation is unfair and has not worked?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

You will know that my hon. Friend represents a Scottish constituency, Mr. Speaker, but I do not intend to draw you into the debate. What can I say in answer to that question?

Furthermore, there is widespread recognition throughout Wales that the Assembly needs a stronger and quicker mechanism for achieving its legislative priorities. That is why, in our general election manifesto, we pledged to deliver enhanced powers for the Assembly. Under the current devolution settlement, it is for Parliament to determine what additional powers the Assembly may require.

Over the past eight years, the system has worked well, with Parliament passing four Wales-only Bills—with two more being considered this Session—and 34 other Bills containing Welsh clauses. But it has still meant that proposals from the Assembly must compete for time with the Government's own legislative priorities. The Bill will therefore establish a mechanism to free the Assembly from the Westminster logjam by transferring legislative responsibility to Cardiff in relation to defined matters, approved on a case-by-case basis by Parliament. Those new powers will ensure that the Assembly gets the legislative tools it needs to do the job quicker and more easily than is possible at present, but Parliament will still be the arbiter over whether powers are transferred. So the provisions represent a development of the current settlement, and not a fundamental change.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I wish to make a little progress and then I shall be happy to let the hon. Gentleman intervene.

The Bill also ensures that, for the first time ever, primary powers for Wales are on the statute book, subject to a referendum. Some have shouted "betrayal" because primary powers are not being delivered immediately, but such a fundamental change from the 1997 settlement, which was endorsed by a referendum, could be changed only by another referendum. To advocates of primary powers, I say, "Don't shout at the Government, but go out and win the argument. Make the case to the people of Wales. If you win the argument, this Bill provides a mechanism for delivery. The ball is now in your court."

An unwelcome development since the 1998 Act was passed has been the problem of defeated constituency candidates being elected through the backdoor on their party's regional list. Politicians are placing an each-way bet on constituency elections, with the electorate losing out. As a Government, we are determined to put the voters back in charge, restoring their democratic right to reject a constituency candidate. We have a clear manifesto commitment and will press the case for reform.

The Bill delivers a lasting settlement that will settle the constitutional argument in Wales for a generation or more. Instead of constantly revising and returning to the issue of its powers and electoral arrangements, the Assembly will now be able to focus on policy development and delivery, in education, health and all the other devolved fields. The constant demand "More powers" will be redundant: they will be on the statute book when the Bill receives Royal Assent, ready for implementation after a successful referendum. Instead of powers, the real question will be: are the Welsh Assembly Government delivering or not? What are the future policies necessary to build a world-class Wales? Political arguments over policies will replace political arguments over powers, so that Welsh political culture gains full maturity.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

What is the Secretary of State's response to the Electoral Commission's view that the changes proposed for the voting system are perceived as politically partisan and could lead to less participation in the Assembly elections?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I think it is wrong and I shall cite alternative evidence later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman might consider experience across the world, in Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, Thailand and a number of other places, where the issue has arisen but the abuse that has taken place in Wales has not occurred to the same extent. I shall come back to that point.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The possibility of people both standing for a seat and being elected from the list when they were defeated was inherent in the system set up in 1998, and is an inevitable consequence of such a system of proportional representation. Indeed, it exists in other parts of the United Kingdom. So on what basis has the Secretary of State suddenly decided that Wales should not have that system, which is common throughout the world, even if it has come in for criticism? Why has he decided that Wales uniquely should not have it, and why has he done so in a manner of which the Electoral Commission has been very critical?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I was about to come to that point. The problem with being so generous in accepting interventions is that they come before the arguments have been made.

In 1997–98, I stood at the Dispatch Box with my colleagues and took the Bill through—indeed, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was on the Opposition Front Bench at the time, opposing it, as Conservatives always oppose devolution progress in Wales—but none of us foresaw a situation in which the system would be so widely abused. People in Wales say to me, "If I want to defeat a constituency candidate because I don't like them, why should they pop up on the list?" That is the fundamental point. We are putting the voters back in charge. If they do not want to elect somebody, they do not have to do so. There should not be a situation where people can decide to place a both-way bet, stand in both categories and win even if they are kicked out by the electorate.

Angus MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Does the Secretary of State concede that with first past the post somebody could be elected merely on 26 per cent. of the vote, with four parties? The list system compensates for the inequities of first past the post.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman has only just wandered into the debate and his point is rather wandering as well. All we are saying is that the list system will remain and people can make a choice. They can decide—as Labour Members are doing. As I shall explain later, half a dozen Labour Members will be faced with a tough choice. They face swings against them of less than 3 per cent. Going by the general election performance last year, their seats will be vulnerable in the next Assembly election. They have to face that choice; they do not have the lifebelt of being able to stand in the list, any more than candidates of any other party.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Does not it operate to the advantage of those Labour constituency Members that a softer candidate will be standing against them on a first-past-the-post basis? The more able candidates will stand on the regional list rather than on first past the post. Is not that precisely what the Secretary of State is hoping for?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

There we have it in its full glory—the real Conservative face of Wales exposed. Why have the hon. Gentleman and other Welsh Conservatives joined an unholy coalition on the issue with Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats? Why are they so afraid of taking their choice to the people? Are they afraid that they will lose constituency elections and therefore opt for the lifebelt of the list? If so, they might as well not bother to stand in the constituencies in the first place. The hon. Gentleman represents the constituency of Clwyd, West, where at the last Assembly elections, three of the candidates who were defeated ended up winning on the lists. Three of the people in Clwyd, West who were booted out by the electorate ended up as Assembly Members, competing against the winning Assembly Member, Alun Pugh.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am not in an unholy alliance with anyone, as far as I know—at least, I was not until just now—but all the extrinsic and academic evidence concludes that the proposal is partisan, in favour of new Labour. In coming to that formulation, did the Secretary of State take advice from President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, but I studied what has happened in Mexico and Thailand, and in Canada in New Brunswick, among other provinces, and what is being done in New Zealand. I will quote alternative evidence later in my speech, including from a much more respected academic commentator on Wales than those who have been quoted.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

As I am in a charitable mood, of course I give way.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

On this occasion, there could be a holy alliance between hon. Members because certainly some people have to think straight. The Secretary of State seems to be taking advice from people throughout the international arena, but I do not understand why he ignored the advice of the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, who when giving evidence thought that the problems could be dealt with by using a protocol along Scottish lines. Why has the Secretary of State ignored the First Minister? Can we expect these electoral changes to be introduced in Scotland shortly?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I do not know where the hon. Lady has done her research, but the First Minister is fully signed up to this policy. At a special Welsh Labour conference on 11 September 2004, he voted for and backed the manifesto on which we stood in May last year that unanimously endorsed the policy. He is enthusiastically backing the policy and she should not take his name in vain in that way.

Although the proposals in the Bill were in Labour's manifesto for an historic third term, it is right to acknowledge the part that people from all parties have played in the debate on the future powers and electoral arrangements of the Assembly. Those people include Lord Richard of Ammanford and the members of his commission who submitted a detailed report to the Welsh Assembly Government in 2004. I pay tribute to Lord Richard for the strength of his advocacy. He remains a tribune for Welsh reform, and we look forward to his contributions when the Bill reaches the House of Lords.

Members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), have provided expert analysis to inform the debate about the Bill, as have members of the Assembly Committee, chaired by the Presiding Officer, Lord Elis-Thomas.

The vast majority of clauses in this 165-clause Bill should have cross-party support. Ninety-three clauses re-enact, with only minor modifications, those from the 1998 Act. For example, clauses 145 to 147 on Welsh public records, which applied just to the Assembly as a corporate body under the old Act, have been modified to apply to the Welsh Assembly Government and the Assembly Commission separately.

A further 47 entirely new clauses have been incorporated into the Bill to establish a proper legislature to hold the Executive to account—something that all parties support. Many of those provisions draw directly from existing statutes, which provide a successful model for what we are trying to achieve in Wales. For example, the provisions establishing the Assembly Commission are drawn almost word for word from the provisions in the Scotland Act 1998, which set up the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I hope that those clauses, too, will prove uncontentious, so that the vast majority of clauses—at least 140 of the 165 clauses—will have cross-party support. Just 24 clauses concern extra powers—the real meat of the Bill—and one clause from the 1998 Act has been amended so as to ban candidates from simultaneously standing in both a constituency and for a region, whether as a list candidate or as an individual.

The Bill will set up the Welsh Assembly Government as an entity in its own right, rather than as an off-shoot of the National Assembly, as it is now. In future, it will be much clearer who is responsible for taking decisions and who should be accountable for them. Instead of an Assembly modelled on old local government lines, there will be a new Westminster-type structure with a clear distinction between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Assembly acting as a proper legislature, holding Ministers to account. This change has support from all parties in the Assembly and will make for better government and better public understanding of the differences between the responsibilities of Ministers on the one hand, and the role of Opposition parties and Back Benchers of all parties on the other.

Secondly, the Bill will give the Assembly enhanced powers to take decisions affecting the people of Wales in areas approved by Parliament on a case-by-case basis.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I will make progress, then take more interventions.

Through this new, streamlined procedure, the Assembly will be able to achieve its legislative priorities more quickly and easily, without getting caught up in the inevitable Westminster logjam. The Bill does that by building on the current devolution settlement, and this is the key point. Westminster will still be in charge, deciding on the principle of granting new powers to the Assembly, but the detailed work on policies affecting Wales will increasingly be carried out in Wales.

To achieve this, the Bill establishes a new Order-in-Council procedure that will enable Parliament to grant the Assembly the power to make its own laws over the specific matter set out in the Order in Council. The order will not be long and will not set out the detail of the policy that the Assembly wishes to implement, although that will be explained in an explanatory memorandum, because that will be a matter for the Assembly to determine. The order will simply define the scope of the powers being conferred on the Assembly and Parliament will vote on the principle of the Assembly acquiring those powers.

It may help the House if I briefly outline the main procedural stages where the Welsh Assembly Government have initiated a proposal for an Order in Council.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I would like to explain the procedure, then I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

First, a preliminary draft Order in Council would be prepared following discussion between the Welsh Assembly Government, relevant Whitehall Departments, and the Wales Office. Secondly, the preliminary draft would be submitted to pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament and the Assembly. The precise nature of pre-legislative scrutiny would be a matter for the House and for the Assembly to determine. The processes are therefore not laid down in the Bill, but I hope that the successful model of the Welsh Affairs Committee scrutinising Wales-only Bills, such as the Transport (Wales) Bill, in tandem with the relevant Assembly Committee could be applied to Orders in Council, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) suggested.

That process of pre-scrutiny will give all Members of this House an opportunity to become involved if they wish in examining requests from the Assembly at an early stage, with the Secretary of State and the Assembly making modifications as appropriate in response to parliamentary recommendations. Parliament will therefore be an active player in shaping the future powers of the Assembly.

After pre-scrutiny has been completed, there would be a formal statutory process for agreeing the final text. Once the final text of a draft order had been approved by the Assembly, it would be sent to the Secretary of State who must, by the end of 60 sitting days, either have laid the draft Order in Council before both Houses of Parliament or have given the First Minister written reasons for not being prepared to do so. The 60-day deadline is needed principally to cover those occasions, which I believe will be infrequent, where there has not been consensual co-operation between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Wales Office in the development of the proposal.Once the order has been laid by the Secretary of State, it would then have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament on an affirmative resolution.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I want to understand a little more about the pre-legislative scrutiny. If I understand the Secretary of State's position, the scrutiny will be on not the details of the legislation, but the principles of the area that will be delegated for the Assembly to legislate on. Does that not require a considerable abdication of the responsibility of Members of this House, without the people of Wales endorsing that and saying that they would prefer the Assembly to do something, rather than hon. Members? How can the Secretary of State justify such a major constitutional shift without going to the people of Wales and asking them to endorse it by referendum?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Because, quite simply—I have dealt with this point before—it is not a major constitutional shift. Parliament will still be in charge. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not opposing the NHS Redress Bill, which includes a framework clause to give the Assembly full powers to determine a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. I am surprised that he is not up in arms about that, although perhaps he will be now that I have suggested it.

Since 1999, legislation that has gone through the House has provided for the Assembly to take through regulations by secondary legislation to determine detailed policies. There is no difference in principle between that and a procedure through which the Assembly draws up Assembly measures by Orders in Council rather than primary legislation, because Parliament is still in charge. Each Order in Council will be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum that will explain the provision's purpose fully to all hon. Members—whether they are Welsh or not—so that they will be able to take a view on the matter.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

If Orders in Council are such a good idea, why did neither the Government nor the Labour party in Wales make that suggestion in evidence to the Richard commission so that it could give a verdict on it?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

We have taken careful account of the Richard commission report and the debate that has taken place since its publication. The nub of the issue is this: the Liberal Democrats—the hon. Gentleman is not a bad fellow, so I am sorry that he has joined in this bad habit—have said that they want primary powers. I respect that and, in fact, agree with it as a matter of principle. However, they want those powers without a referendum. They want to jump straight to primary powers through the Bill, but it would not be acceptable to make such a fundamental change to the devolution settlement without a referendum, which is what it would be because Parliament would be no longer in charge, although it is of course sovereign in every respect in the United Kingdom in a theoretical and actual fashion. We will make more progress to overcome some of the problems that the Assembly has had in recent years by giving it greater discretion while Parliament remains in charge. That is the point of the Bill and the new first stage involving Orders in Council, which I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Given the narrow result of the referendum that set up the National Assembly for Wales in the first place, and the low turnout, what evidence does the Secretary of State have that people in Wales want the Assembly to have more powers?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I do not know the hon. Gentleman's majority, but a victory is a victory under our democracy. If one wins the vote, one wins. The Welsh people voted, although, admittedly, the result was uncomfortably narrow, as I remember well. These repeated attacks—the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) made one in his best Rottweiler fashion—on the verdict of the Welsh people show that the Welsh Conservatives have never accepted the devolution settlement.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No. I am sorry, but I need to make progress and have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

If Parliament agrees that enhanced powers on a particular matter should be conferred on the Assembly, and once the Order in Council has been made, the Assembly can deliver new made-in-Wales legislation in relation to that matter. The new laws will be called Assembly measures, and the Assembly's arrangements for scrutinising and approving measures will closely follow the procedures used in this House for considering primary legislation. Although the detail will be a matter for the Assembly itself to determine, the Bill requires that the Assembly provides for three stages of consideration on the principle, detail and the final text of proposed measures, which are analogous to Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading. That reflects an important principle underlying the Order-in-Council procedure. The proposed powers to be conferred would be bestowed by Parliament not on individual Ministers—not on the Executive—but on an elected legislature, with its own rigorous procedures for scrutiny both of the Executive and of legislative measures.

I have discussed this matter with the Chairs of both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords. They agree that there is an important distinction to be made between powers conferred on an elected legislature and those delegated to a Secretary of State. There should therefore not be the same concerns expressed over powers conferred on an elected, accountable law-making body such as the Assembly, with its own scrutiny processes, as have been expressed over powers delegated to Ministers.

The Government believe that this new procedure will be of immense benefit to the Assembly Government in enabling them to carry out their functions in the devolved fields of responsibilities. Of the bids for legislation that the Assembly has made over the past six years, the vast majority have been on matters that have excited little or no parliamentary controversy, such as the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill and the Public Audit (Wales) Bill, and all but two of them could have been accommodated under the new streamlined process provided for in this Bill. The exceptions are the demands for the Assembly to have the power to ban hunting and to have control over shop opening times. An additional one may be the request for St. David's day to be a bank holiday. Those could not be delivered under the Order-in-Council process, as they lie outside the existing devolved settlement.

The procedure will give the Assembly much wider flexibility and discretion, while preserving the key pillar of the existing devolution settlement: it is Parliament that will determine the new powers that the Assembly will acquire. Parliament, as ever, remains sovereign. The procedure will also relieve pressures on parliamentary business managers from Assembly bids for Bills.

As we have heard, the Opposition suggest that the new Order-in-Council procedure might be used to give the Assembly primary powers through the back door. That is simply not the case, as clause 94 makes abundantly clear. If the Assembly ever attempted to acquire such powers by the back door, I as Secretary of State would block it, so would this House and so would the Lords. It is inconceivable because there is a triple lock to prevent it. Parliament remains in charge.

The additional powers offering a more streamlined route for Assembly decision making fall within the settlement endorsed in the 1997 referendum. However, it may prove at some time that even they are still insufficient to address the needs of the people of Wales. The Bill therefore makes provision to confer full primary powers on the Assembly, subject to a referendum. I am proud to be the first Secretary of State for Wales to seek to place primary powers on the statute book. But, as I have explained, it is essential that such a fundamental change to the devolution settlement should first be approved by the people of Wales through a referendum, and it would be hugely damaging to the cause of devolution to move to that stage before there was widespread agreement in Wales. For that reason, the Bill includes a number of safeguards to ensure that there is no premature move towards primary powers.

First, the Bill ensures that a referendum would be triggered only if supported by two thirds of all Assembly Members. Secondly, the Bill places a responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure that a referendum could take place only after adequate public consultation. Finally, a referendum order would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament by affirmative motion and two thirds of all Assembly Members before it could proceed. Taken together, these safeguards will ensure that a strong, multi-party consensus must exist before a referendum can be called—something that is not likely to happen in the near future.

These provisions are vital to settle the constitutional debate in Wales. By legislating for primary powers now, we avoid the need for a further Government of Wales Bill. Instead of the constant distraction of endless constitutional argument, this Bill puts primary powers on the statute book awaiting the verdict of the electorate. Instead of being the domain of political and constitutional anoraks, the question of the Assembly's powers will be in the hands of the Welsh people. Instead of sniping from the sidelines, proponents of primary powers will have to win the argument.

Those leading the calls for an early referendum are doing a disservice to the cause of devolution in Wales. To call a referendum on primary powers now, when we know that it would fail, would not only destroy the chance of enhancing the Assembly's powers, but do terrible damage to devolution itself. Just look at the aftermath of the no vote in 1979, when the prospect of devolution was taken off the agenda for nearly 20 years—a generation. I know that some will say that certain opinion polls show a majority in favour of a Scottish-style Parliament, but I caution them to remember the opinion polls prior to the referendum in 1997, which predicted an overwhelming victory for the yes campaign. The votes did not reflect the headlines in the end, and I believe that the same would be true today.

Let me now deal with our proposals to reform the electoral system for the Assembly. In 1998, the Labour Government established the additional member system for elections to the Assembly. Broadly speaking, that electoral system has been a success: it has preserved the strong tradition of individual constituency representation that is fundamental to our democracy while delivering a system of fair votes that has improved democratic accountability in Wales. It has even thrown a life belt to the Welsh Conservative party, although that is not something that I would celebrate. However, although it has worked well in ensuring fair representation in the Assembly, I, as one of the Ministers who took the Bill through the Commons, never imagined the abuses that have resulted.

The system as it has operated in Wales has a major weakness. A widespread practice since the Assembly was established has been that candidates who are rejected by a particular constituency have secured backdoor election as Assembly Members through the regional list and so have been able to claim to represent the constituency that rejected them. In Clwyd, West in 2003, three of the four defeated candidates were subsequently elected to the Assembly through the regional list. That practice clouds political accountability and denies the voters their right to reject a particular candidate at the ballot box. The change made by the Bill—requiring candidates to choose whether to stand for a constituency or a regional list—will put the voters in charge.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

Is the Secretary of State saying that that abuse is peculiar to the Welsh political culture or that dual candidacies per se are bad news? Do the Government believe that the practice should be ruled out in, for example, London assembly elections?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The Bill is about Wales. One of the things that Conservatives find difficult to understand is that devolution allows different parts of the United Kingdom to operate in different ways. Circumstances have arisen in Wales that have allowed widespread abuse and we are correcting that.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Is the Secretary of State prepared to place in the Library details of all the objections and problems that have arisen from the present electoral system? He constantly refers to a body of evidence that appears not to exist. I do not know how many letters he has had, but academics and those who have examined the system, including the Electoral Commission, say that there is no great body of evidence to justify the changes that he is proposing. Is he prepared to put the evidence in the Library and show us how overwhelming the demand for change is?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I shall certainly reflect on the hon. Lady's request, but I am about to explain the circumstances that justify the policy set out in the Bill.

It cannot be right for losers to become winners through the back door, despite having been rejected by the voters. That is an abuse of democracy, as is the practice adopted by 15 of the 20 list AMs of using taxpayers' money to open constituency offices in the seats in which they were defeated and targeting those seats to win next time by cherry-picking local issues against the constituency AMs who beat them.

The hon. Lady asks for evidence. Criticism of the existing system has been widespread. Lord Richard recently told the Welsh Affairs Committee:

"There is something wrong in a situation in which five people can stand in Clwyd, none of them can be elected, and then they all get into the Assembly. On the face of it that does not make sense. I think that a lot of people in Wales find that it does not."

The hon. Lady asked for evidence and I am now about to give it to her. The eminent Welsh academic, Dr. Denis Balsom, said in evidence to the Richard commission:

"Candidates use the list as an insurance against failing to win a constituency contest. This dual candidacy can also confuse the electorate, who may wish to consciously reject a particular candidate only to find them elected via the list. It should remain a basic democratic right not to elect a particular candidate or to be able to vote a Member out."

Lord Carlile, the former Welsh Liberal Democrat—[Interruption.] This is not against a list system. It is saying to candidates, "Make a choice." Why are they so afraid of making a choice? Stand and face the verdict of the people in the constituency or stand on the list, whichever they wish. It is—[Interruption.] I have been asked for evidence and I have taken up a great deal of time in interventions.

Lord Carlile, the former Welsh Liberal Democrat leader, has said:

"many in Wales will welcome . . . the removal of the absurd dual candidacy opportunity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1217.]

The former Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Crickhowell—the Conservatives want evidence—has said that the

"present arrangements are really pretty indefensible."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005, Vol. 672, c. 1216.]

In the consultation on the White Paper, I received only one formal response from the Conservative party, but it was a most significant one. It was from the Preseli Pembrokeshire Conservative association. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) is swelling with pride as the association's representative. It said:

"We agree with the proposal to prevent individuals from simultaneously being candidates in constituency elections and being eligible for election from party lists."

Game, set and match.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I will give way for the shadow Attorney-General to disagree with the Preseli Pembrokeshire Conservative association.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Given the importance that the Secretary of State attached to this issue as a matter of principle, when will we have a statement from the Prime Minister that the other systems of proportional representation in the United Kingdom that the Government have set up will be altered? Does the Secretary of State understand that asking the House to treat something in isolation can be perceived, however great his vehemence, as gerrymandering? We are not prepared to tolerate that. If he wishes to change the system, it should be changed as an issue of principle throughout the country and not for the convenience of the Welsh Labour party.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am glad that I took that intervention. That is because I have further evidence explaining exactly why it is not in any sense gerrymandering or partisan. The hon. Gentleman asks why there should not be a statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The abuse has happened in Wales and we are correcting it in Wales. The Bill is about Wales. I know of no similar complaints about London. Indeed, I know of no similar complaints on an equivalent scale anywhere else to those that have existed in Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Does the Secretary of State share my immense regret that we have to discuss these matters today? We do so with deep regret because those of us, with the best intentions, who supported the Government of Wales Act 1998, did not foresee the level of abuse that we have had. I would welcome a strong Liberal Democrat presence in my constituency to bring the fight to me, but regrettably that presence in adverts, local constituency offices and surgeries is in the target seats that the Liberal Democrats hope to win in the first-past-the-post system.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Exactly.

The comments that I quoted earlier from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, independents, academics and even from the Preseli Pembrokeshire Conservative association, a fountain of wisdom in the Conservative party alone on this matter, show that there is a body of evidence, and there is much more, putting the case for—

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Perhaps the Secretary of State will help us on Northern Ireland. Is dual candidacy a feature of the Northern Ireland election system, and has he any views on that?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Different parts of the United Kingdom have different—[Interruption.] I expect the Conservatives to scoff at devolution. That is what they have done all along and they always will do, as they are doing today. They are seeking to kill the Bill. However, I do not expect the Liberal Democrats to deny that different parts of the United Kingdom can develop in different ways—indeed, that is the purpose of devolution—and embrace different practices.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The Secretary of State cited as an abuse that he wishes to remedy the fact that list Members set up constituency offices. How would his proposal stop them doing so in constituencies in which they intend to stand?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

It would not stop them setting up constituency offices. However, I think that the Assembly may make a decision in its standing orders to stop that practice, and I hope that it does so. I am glad that a member of Plaid Cymru has asked me about this, because only today I received a press release from Helen Mary Jones, in which she describes herself as the "Llanelli-based Assembly Member". She complains about money spent on a hospital in Carmarthen instead of one in Llanelli. However, as a list Member, she represents both areas, and is the Member for Mid and West Wales. Yet again, a member of Plaid Cymru has been caught red-handed. Of all the parts of the list area that she represents, she targets the one place where she narrowly lost last time, and describes herself as the Llanelli-based Assembly Member. The Bill will stop her describing herself as the Assembly Member for Llanelli in future, because she was defeated there by Catherine Thomas in 2003.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Surely the right hon. Gentleman understands that Helen Mary Jones is saying that she is Llanelli-based. She lives there—she does not say that she is the Member for Llanelli. If that were the case, he would have ground for complaint. Perhaps more importantly, the right hon. Gentleman says that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) may be addressed by standing orders in the National Assembly. Will he oversee those orders, or will he allow the Assembly to deal with them itself?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The standing orders will be drawn up by the National Assembly itself. In his party's interests, may I discourage the hon. Gentleman from making such interventions, as he has provoked me to produce even more evidence? I have it on good authority from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that Helen Mary Jones lives in his constituency and is one of his constituents. We have a leaked memorandum—[Interruption.] I can see Plaid Cymru Members writhing—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but we must not have continual sedentary interventions. That applies across the House. There is a long list of Members who wish to speak in the debate, and they may be sacrificing their chances of being called.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I will take that as an instruction to make progress, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It is significant, however, that Plaid Cymru Members are writhing in embarrassment, along with many other Opposition Members. I am not surprised, given the statement made in a memorandum by Leanne Wood, another Assembly Member. I could read out the entire statement, but I am pressed for time.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Go on.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

My hon. Friend may wish to know that, yet again, a member of Plaid Cymru has been caught red- handed, and advocates the targeting of Assembly office budgets in target seats. She says that her party's list Members will only do case work where it will benefit Plaid Cymru in those seats and will only attend civic and other events in the constituency if they think that there are votes in it. What a terrible advertisement for a Plaid Cymru Assembly Member.

The comments and evidence that I have cited demonstrate that the claim that the measure is partisan is entirely without foundation. I shall explain why. I remind the House that there are six Labour Assembly Members, including three Ministers, who would be defeated by a swing of 3 per cent. against them—a very small swing. They will no longer have the safety net of the regional list. This reform will affect Labour candidates, just as it applies to candidates of other parties. Candidates must make their choice, then the voters will make theirs.

The Bill marks an important step forward for the Assembly and an important step forward for Wales. I therefore hope that it will command broad cross-party support as it goes through both Houses. We all have our different views on which party should be in power in Cardiff bay, but we should all be able to unite to ensure that the Assembly works effectively as a democratically elected body for the good of Wales. There should be a cross-party consensus on putting Wales first.

I was encouraged when the new Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted to make a break from past Tory opposition to devolution and instead make it work for the people of Wales. He told The Western Mail that the Tories would no longer pursue the option of a referendum to abolish the Assembly. I had hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham would adopt a similarly constructive approach to devolution and abandon the anti-Welsh and anti-Assembly stance of her predecessor as shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). However, it is hard to see how the new consensus approach to Wales signalled by the Leader of the Opposition fits with the reasoned amendment tabled in his name and that of the hon. Lady, which seeks to block even a modest extension of powers to the Assembly by a ridiculous and ritualistic demand for a referendum.

The idea that the people of Wales would be galvanised by a referendum on the Assembly being authorised to legislate via parliamentary Orders in Council in future, rather than by parliamentary Bills as now, is absurd. What on earth would the question be? Even more to the point, what would the turnout be? The amendment calls for a referendum on enhanced legislative powers for the Assembly. Perhaps she could tell the House how she would campaign in such a referendum—for or against? Does she agree with Nick Bourne, her party's leader in the Assembly, who said that

"all parties agree the present situation is not sustainable in the long term"?

If the hon. Lady continues to pursue her opposition to even these modest additional powers for Wales, she will have squandered an historic opportunity to redefine the position of the Conservative party in Wales. Instead of consigning to the past the Tories' reputation as an anti-devolution party, she will have cemented it. A referendum is called for when the 1997 settlement is fundamentally changed, as the Bill proposes with regard to primary powers. There is no case at all for a referendum that merely adapts the current settlement, with Parliament remaining in charge, as has been the case so far. What she is recommending is a recipe for obstruction and paralysis. It is nothing more than another Tory attempt to thwart the development of the Assembly.

The Bill represents a crucial test for the Welsh Conservatives and they have already failed it. It is in the national interest of Wales for all parties to bury the arguments of the past and accept that the Assembly is here to stay, and to concentrate instead on making devolution work better. Instead, the Tories have stuck by their rejectionist policies of the past. So much for the Leader of the Opposition's new consensus approach to policy-making. It clearly excludes Wales.

Wales will have to move on without the Tories, and today we begin to do that, in a new dawn for devolution like that famous one in September 1997. Wales has made great progress over the past eight years. We now have the opportunity to settle for a long time the constitutional status of Wales, first by devolving further powers to the Assembly, and secondly by the prospect of primary powers at some time in the future, if the people of Wales vote for that option in a referendum. By equipping the Assembly to face the challenges of the 21st century, we will help to achieve our objective of a Wales that is world-class, both economically competitive and with high quality public services. For the good of the people of Wales, I call on all parties in the House to support the Bill.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move,

"That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Government of Wales Bill because there has been inadequate consultation about the electoral arrangements proposed in the Bill; and because the Bill fails to provide for a referendum on the introduction of the Orders in Council mechanisms for conferring enhanced legislative powers on the National Assembly for Wales."

I join the Secretary of State in the tributes paid to Merlyn Rees and to Lord Stratford. In Merlyn Rees we have lost a man who was admired across all parts of the political spectrum, and in Lord Stratford we have lost a parliamentarian who gave us much pleasure and amusement over the years while pursuing some very serious policies in which he believed.

I also welcome the Secretary of State's ordering an investigation into the tragic deaths of Maurice Broadbent, David Horrocks, Wayne Wilkes and 14-year-old Thomas Harland. It seems that valuable lives have been wasted in a tragic accident, and I shall carefully consider the outcome of any investigation.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome to my new post. He began by trying to misrepresent my position, but I hope that I can put the record straight in the course of my brief remarks about the Bill and disabuse people about the position in which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to place me, my hon. Friends and my party.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

Will the hon. Lady be as clear with the House as her predecessor, who favoured a referendum on abolishing the National Assembly for Wales?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The hon. Gentleman's extraordinary intervention is premature. If he contains his enthusiasm, I will set out my party's position.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out the Bill's context and main provisions. The legislation is highly significant not only for the future governance of Wales, but for the constitutional position of the United Kingdom as a whole. Under my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Conservative party is a party of localism and devolution. On his first visit to Wales as Leader of the Opposition just before Christmas, my right hon. Friend made it clear that devolution and the National Assembly are now established features of the Welsh political landscape. I hope that the Secretary of State will resist the temptation to revisit past battles over devolution and misrepresent our position. A future Conservative Government will seek a constructive relationship with the Assembly, whichever party or parties form the Welsh Assembly Government. We do not, however, believe that the Assembly discharges its functions in every respect either effectively or efficiently, which is something that we will seek to remedy.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

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?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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.

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.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

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?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

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?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

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 (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.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not think that the Secretary of State understands. He told us that the precise nature of 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.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

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.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The point is that it is pre-legislative scrutiny. We will not have the document; it could change. It was the right hon. Gentleman, I believe, who said that he did not think that the Orders in Council would trouble the legislative programme to any great extent:

"It is an hour-and-a-half debate on the floor of the House compared with going through all the stages of . . . legislation."

He is damned by his own words in showing that there will be a downgrading of the role of the House. There was no demand for such a move. It was not proposed by Lord Richard. No other party has put it forward. It is simply a compromise to try to keep the anti-devolution and pro-devolution wings of the Labour party together, although in the long run I suspect that it will satisfy neither.

There is a straightforward solution. If the Secretary of State is so confident that this move is right for the people of Wales, he should let them have their say. Instead, he is offering the people of Wales a referendum on proposals in the Bill on which he admits that there is no consensus, which he does not expect to call for many years—all because, in his own words,

"Rhodri"

—the First Minister—

"and I and Welsh Labour are not in the business of calling referendums we are going to lose".

That is the honest truth of the matter. We have proceeded from a pre-legislative referendum in 1997 to a post-legislative referendum in the Bill.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I want to make a little progress. I will let the hon. Gentleman know when I am going to give way to him.

No matter what the Secretary of State says, the changes in part 3 are not minor matters. They fundamentally alter the relationship between Parliament and the Assembly, and the people of Wales should be given a vote on them. Now I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

I thank the hon. Lady and welcome her to her post.

The people of Wales did have a vote, in May 2005, when they returned 29 Labour Members of Parliament in Wales. In the manifesto on which we all stood, we made clear that we would present proposals for the Assembly to be given enhanced legislative powers. There have been occasions on which I have been less than enthusiastic about more powers for the Assembly, but that was the manifesto on which I stood. Does the hon. Lady believe that that carries any weight at all?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I think that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to volunteer to give up his seat in the House so that there can be more Welsh Assembly Members, should more powers be devolved to the Assembly.

The detail in the hon. Gentleman's manifesto simply is not there. Orders in Council were certainly not envisaged at that stage. It is a clever idea, but it is a Johnny-come-lately idea. If it is such a marvellous idea, what is the problem with giving the people of Wales a vote on it?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I have already welcomed the hon. Lady to Wales and to our debate. Does she agree that one of the great successes of the last couple of years is the quality and extent of pre-legislative scrutiny applying to Wales? She is new to her post, but if she does agree, does she consider such scrutiny to be a good model to apply in this instance?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

It is not a question of the merits or otherwise of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is a question of what is proposed in the Bill, and what is currently proposed in it is singularly unclear. We shall seek clarification throughout the Committee stage, and we shall re-examine these very points. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in examining the detail that we trust the Secretary of State will provide. Orders in Council were not envisaged in the Richard report, and have caused a great deal of consternation not just in this House but in another place, and it is important for us to be allowed three days of scrutiny on the Floor of the House.

The second major flaw in the Bill is the blatant alteration of the electoral system in part 1 to favour the Welsh Labour party.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

May I say something before the hon. Lady leaves the subject of powers? She will know that differences of view between the Assembly and Westminster are reconciled through the judicial committee of the Privy Council—which, as I am sure she will agree, is not the most open and transparent body in the British constitution. Can she suggest a way in which the process might be changed in the future?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for treating me as if I were in the Government. Perhaps he would like to ask me that question if I were Secretary of State for Wales, but I think that it should be put to the current Secretary of State.

At the moment, I am convinced that our problems with the legislation are summed up by what the right hon. Gentleman said on 10 December. He said

"you could get on with the job in the meantime and give substantial powers, as Rhodri said, to the Assembly through Orders in Council between 2007 and 2011".

That is what we must examine. It is a way of passing—almost—a concealed grant of direct legislative competence to Cardiff, and we need to examine it in detail. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, as he is currently the Secretary of State.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Lady just does not know.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep quiet.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The proposed rigging of the electoral system will, despite the protestations of the Secretary of State, prevent candidates who stand in one of the 40 single Member constituencies and who fail to be elected from also standing on the regional top-up lists in any of the regional constituency areas.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Let me make a little progress, please.

The prime motivation for this appears to be the political interests of the Labour party in Wales. The Secretary of State and the First Minister have both said that, in respect of full law-making powers, we have to wait for the consensus. That is fine, but clearly there is no consensus whatever for the proposed change to the electoral system.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

It was in the manifesto.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not believe that the changes to the electoral system for all elections throughout the UK were featured in the manifesto. Or did it apply only to Wales? This is an issue on which the Welsh Affairs Committee divided on party lines.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

It was in the Welsh manifesto.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

It may have been in the Welsh manifesto, but it was not in the Scottish Parliament and London Assembly manifestos.

The Electoral Reform Society has spoken out about its profound doubts on this change, saying:

"There is no evidence at all to back up this proposal and therefore we come to the conclusion that we do not think that the case for change has been made".

The commission also made the point that such a change needed to be considered in a UK rather than just a Welsh context. Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell the House when he expects his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to adopt the same procedures for elections to the Scottish Parliament. Why did such changes not form part of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

As the hon. Lady has raised the issue, I shall tell her that the measure appeared in the UK manifesto. A more extensive description appeared in the Welsh manifesto, but the specific commitment appeared in Labour's UK manifesto, which was fought on by every candidate throughout the UK.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does that mean that the Government will apply the measure to Scotland, in which case why did it not form part of the Labour party's representation to the Arbuthnot commission? If it is a principle, which the Secretary of State has said it is, it should apply right across the UK.

The truth is that this is a spiteful and anti-democratic measure that should have no place in a Government of Wales Bill and may not even survive a challenge under human rights legislation. In December, the Secretary of State boldly asserted that, in his view, the Bill would settle the constitutional question in Wales. In his own words:

"What I hope this will do is settle for a generation—if not more—the whole constitutional obsession we have in Wales about the powers and status of the Assembly".

He knows that the Bill as drafted will do no such thing. Rather than settle the constitutional question, it simply leaves it wide open.

The Bill offers little prospect of long-term constitutional stability. It proposes a hybrid system of enhanced legislative powers that weakens Parliament and the role of Welsh MPs, while fundamentally changing the 1998 devolution settlement without giving the people of Wales a vote or a voice. Further, it seeks to rig the electoral system to the partisan advantage of the Labour Party.

If the Government thought that the time has come to make further devolution to Wales, the honest way of going about it would be to consult the people of Wales now, through a referendum, and not wait until some intermediate point along the path, by which time important changes will have been introduced under the guise of this Bill. The Secretary of State had the opportunity to improve the operations of the Assembly simply by separating the Assembly Government from the Assembly Members. Instead, I am afraid that he has chosen to pursue his political interests at the same time, jeopardising the legislation and compromising the people of Wales by adding provisions for partisan, party purposes. I am sorry that he has made that choice.

We have had no choice but to table a reasoned amendment, and I ask the House to support it in the Lobby tonight. I will not vote against Second Reading if a vote is called because there are elements of the Bill that we Conservatives support, but because the Secretary of State has chosen to include partisan, party proposals, I had no choice but to table a reasoned amendment and to include it in the Order Paper. I ask my hon. Friends to vote with me on it.

Alan Williams (Labour, Swansea West)

Given that many Members want to speak in this debate, and that I intend to construct my contribution around a series of questions, may I suggest to the Secretary of State that he resists the temptation to try to answer them as we go along? I am happy to wait and to hear his answers—hopefully—in the winding-up speech.

The Secretary of State may be a little surprised to hear me start with a welcome, albeit a limited one, for the introduction of a referendum process, which is at least preferable to what was proposed by the Richard commission. What worries me is that the Bill as drafted allows for repeated referendums, until a majority of at least one is eventually achieved. That could conceivably be open to exploitation for political expediency—there could be a campaign of attrition until a majority is won. So why has the Secretary of State ignored the recommendation of the Welsh Affairs Committee that there be a minimum interval between referendums of at least two terms of the Assembly, which is eight years? Also, why has he ignored the First Minister's observation, in answer to question 226 in the Select Committee's report, that the interval would probably be a minimum of one generation, which is 20 years? Why has he even ignored his own contribution in that same question, in which he said that the proposal

"would be off the agenda for a very long time"?

I must admit that if there were a vote on Second Reading, I would be unable to support the Bill—I would not actually oppose it—because of the absence of such a provision.

Is it technically possible—I emphasise the word "technically"; I am not asking whether this is the intention—that under the Bill as drafted, which provides for a succession of orders, the full legislative objective could be achieved without a referendum? As I understand it, it could. It might take a long time, but a succession of orders could achieve that objective. If they could achieve that objective—I may be wrong—would there be any effect if there were a referendum and it returned a no vote, or would we go back to a system of orders and the inevitable chipping away at the devolution process?

I am also concerned about what I call the Trojan horse clause. Page 20 of the Wales Office's guide to the Bill points out that if just one non-controversial, innocuous order is passed, a policy area is opened. Once that happens, the Assembly is free to introduce new measures with different policy objectives, without having to go for a further order. It is a form of creeping devolution.

In view of that, and because that is a result of the order process proposed, it is important that we examine how thorough and efficient are the safeguards provided under the order process, in both the Lords and the Commons. My right hon. Friend knows, as I and every other Member of this House know, that a one and a half hour order cannot be amended. By the time that the Front Bench speeches have finished, there is hardly any time for any alternative opinion. Indeed, by the nature of the House of Commons, it is improbable that the House would be packed with English Members who were gasping to hear the detailed reasons why the order should not be introduced.

My right hon. Friend said that the answer would be in the draft Bill. I am a great enthusiast, as is the Liaison Committee which I chair, for the draft Bill process, but it is clear constitutionally that the draft Bill process recommendations are not binding on the Secretary of State. It is up to his whim whether he accepts them. I do not disagree that the Bill is a fair representation of his opinions but, as he told the Committee, he is an enthusiastic supporter of devolution of the full legislative process. We are therefore left with some scepticism about the effectiveness of the draft process.

In addition, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is up to the House to decide the form of draft Committee. I can see the case for a Joint Committee between the House and the Assembly, as has happened on other issues. However, as I shall suggest to the Liaison Committee, another element is necessary, otherwise the two groups that make up the Select Committee would both be predominantly in favour of devolution going as far as possible. Therefore, the Joint Committee needs an element that would look after the interests of the House of Commons and consider the constitutional impact of the propositions outside Wales. My colleagues on the Liaison Committee and I will consider the possibility of the Constitutional Affairs Committee also being represented.

Now we come to the Lords end. As I understand the evidence that my right hon. Friend gave to the Select Committee, he clearly envisages that what is in effect the Parliament Act process would apply if the Lords rejected the order. So we have a process in the Commons that will be meaningless and a whipped majority will drift the provisions through. In the Lords, my right hon. Friend has cut the legs from under what is intended as a process of scrutiny on behalf of Parliament. It would be interesting to hear my right hon. Friend's evidence on whether the Parliament Act would be appropriate. The propositions before us certainly appeared in the White Paper that was published in June, after the election. They were embodied in a Bill that appeared six months after the election, in December.

My right hon. Friend says that there was pre-election consultation but, as far as we can gather, that consultation was on the Richard commission, which the Bill and the White Paper effectively reject. My right hon. Friend was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), in question 195:

"Have the people of Wales ever been consulted over the Order in Council procedure?"

That is not in Richard, which was part of the consultation; it is a clear and specific question. My right hon. Friend answered:

"There was a widespread process of consultation following the Richard Commission, in which both Rhodri and I were in exactly the same position, that we wanted to see the Assembly get on with its task of having greater powers following 2007 and did not want to wait another four years, as Richard proposed."

That is fascinating, but it is less than precise about what consultation there was with the public, so will my right hon. Friend put in the Library all the consultation documents that he released during the election that outline the procedures covered in the Bill?

I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend suggested 2007, although Richard proposed 2011. Most people are not thinking that far ahead, but I have my retirement to think about and 2011 will be after I have retired, which is not to say that my retirement is relevant, but that the process would take place after the general election. The measure is an insurance policy—a just-in-case provision. While a Labour Government are in office my right hon. Friend wants to get as much slammed through under the order process as he can get away with.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Is it not fair to say that as the First Minister plans to retire in 2009, the measure could be an attempt to put on the statute book something that will act as a memorial and a tribute both to the Secretary of State, as he moves on and a Conservative Government take over, and to the First Minister in Wales? It would grant more powers to the Assembly by the back door.

Alan Williams (Labour, Swansea West)

That suggests a degree of egocentricity on the part of my right hon. Friend that no one would associate with him. In fact, he has introduced a salami-slicing provision—a series of orders that one by one will chip away at the powers of the House and give them to the Assembly. We are still not clear what the consultation was about.

I conclude on a point that has been touched on and which is profoundly important. The House of Commons is sleepwalking and does not quite understand what the devolution process is about, and I suspect that many of my English colleagues have not understood what it might mean for them. Scotland already has its devolution. As Wales spreads its devolutionary catchment, increasingly larger parts of the legislation going through the House of Commons will be England-only. It will not apply in Wales or in Scotland.

I abstained on tuition charges because I felt that I should not vote on them, but we have an anomalous situation whereby Scottish and Welsh Members, who are not answerable to English constituencies, will vote to impose on them measures that will not apply in Scotland or Wales. That affronts my concept of the democratic accountability that I thought existed in our country.

In the atmosphere that has been partially created by the act of devolution—making the Welsh more Welsh and the Scots more Scottish—there is a seeping effect of making the English more English. I suspect that there is a limit to how long the English electorate will put up with a situation where Welsh and Scottish votes determine what they get, especially if there was a Government with an overall UK majority but only a minority of votes in England. I do not think that the Government have even considered the possible repercussions for my party in the future, when the English rumble the effect of what we are putting through the House. There will be a backlash, and at some stage the issue and the policy will come back to bite us.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I welcome the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to her new Front-Bench role on Welsh matters. The early indications are that she will, indeed, be truly inclusive and take a positive approach. That will certainly endear her to her three Conservative Members from Wales.

I also pay tribute to Merlyn Rees, who made a tremendous contribution to Northern Ireland affairs—he will be considerably missed in the other place, where he was active until December—and to Tony Banks, with whom I had considerable interactions, particularly on the vexatious issue of fox hunting. Irrespective of whether I agreed with him, I think that the House can agree that he made a difference and left an indelible mark on parliamentary matters, and to that extent, British politics will be worse off without him.

I apologise to the House on account of the fact that, on this occasion, I may have to be a little rude and leave at about four minutes to 6, as I am chairing an important meeting concerning the local difficulties facing my party. Although I pay tribute, as leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, to the loyalty of my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) and for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), I recognise that my absence may give them the opportunity to call for my resignation. I intend to fight on and consider my position to be tenable.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham suggested that I was standing for the presidency of my party. I can tell her that no vacancy currently exists for the presidency. However, if called upon to serve humanity in that way, I may allow my name to go forward. I thank the hon. Lady for her offer of support.

As is the fashion at the moment among young Opposition MPs, it is necessary to pay tribute to the Government. Labour deserve some credit for grasping the nettle in 1998 and kick-starting the devolution process in 1997. The Bill that the Government presented then was a cautious one; it created the Welsh Assembly, but it kept the Assembly's powers firmly in check. In effect, Westminster still ran a large part of the show. The Government now have a mandate to give Wales the deal that it deserves—an Assembly with primary powers.

Polls suggest that the Welsh public support such a move, and all but one of the major parties seem wholly to support moves toward primary powers. The Richard commission set out a clear path for a proper devolution settlement. Having surveyed all the issues in unique detail, Lord Richard and his colleagues concluded that the best way forward for Wales was, first, to create an 80-Member Assembly, with primary law-making powers, elected by a single-transferable-vote system.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Richard commission gave detailed consideration to relevant matters in Wales. A very important issue for his constituency and mine is the provision of public services from England to Welsh constituents. The Richard commission did not cover that in any detail at all—or can he perhaps enlighten me and tell me where in the Richard commission report it was?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right, but in many ways that is a tactical matter. The way in which the Assembly exercises those powers is a strategic question. He and I and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire all have issues about health and other provision across the border, but it is probably more appropriate for us to discuss those specific matters in a debate other than one that deals with these weighty constitutional matters, although the hon. Gentleman may want to discuss that issue in more detail in his own contribution.

The Richard commission also said that law-making powers would be more effectively dispatched by an 80-Member Assembly. That is the model that Welsh Liberal Democrats want to see put in place. Not only would it create a powerful and professional Welsh senate and a proportional political body with the responsibilities and capacity to move Wales forward, but it would also resolve the issues that the Secretary of State for Wales was trying to grapple with in terms of the frictions that he observes between list Members and constituency Members of the Assembly.

Unfortunately, the Bill comes nowhere near what Lord Richard advocated and what the Welsh Liberal Democrats and, in my judgment, a very large proportion of the people of Wales would like. In its current form, the Bill is flawed, patronising and limited. Its main problem is that it concentrates great power in the figure of the Secretary of State for Wales and, in doing so, could thrust the devolution process into complete limbo for decades. I give considerable praise to the current Secretary of State, who I believe is genuinely committed to devolution, but there is no guarantee that his successors will share his enthusiasm. In fact, he highlighted a possible risk whereby a Secretary of State for Wales might decide to stamp on the requests of the Assembly and therefore thwart devolution.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He may agree that it is not a question of whether the Secretary of State decides to stamp on the Assembly. The fact that he has these draconian Executive powers places the Assembly under his administrative tutelage. That is the reality of the arrangement that is being sold to the Welsh people, as though the Assembly were getting a proper legislative function, which it is not.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes an insightful point. Although he and his party may be coming at the issue from a different direction from my party and, I suspect, Plaid Cymru, the inference is nevertheless the same. If the Secretary of State decided not to grant additional powers in the context of the Bill, he or she could literally prevent those powers from being passed.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

That exists now. Under existing procedures, a Secretary of State, myself included, could decide not to introduce a Bill requested by the Assembly. Ironically, the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Attorney-General are endorsing my argument that Parliament remains in charge and that the first stage of a modest increase in powers does not change the settlement at all. That is the reality. If that does not work, a move to primary powers could take place subject to a referendum. That is the point.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Although I suspect that it has happened by accident, we violently agree. The Secretary of State appears to be trying to mollify not necessarily those on the Conservative Front Bench but the troublesome trio who sit behind them and who want to be reassured that there is no substantial change to the settlement. However, that does not work for the Liberal Democrats or, I imagine, for Plaid Cymru, as we believe that the Bill presents an opportunity to devolve primary powers in a fashion that is similar to the Scottish model rather than maintaining so much influence in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales that, ultimately, an anti-devolution Secretary of State could postpone things.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the current settlement was endorsed by the people of Wales in a referendum and that we are now looking to give greater powers to the Welsh Assembly? Irrespective of whether we move to primary powers for which there would be a referendum, does he agree that the people of Wales must be trusted? They voted once for what we have now and they must be allowed to vote again for a change in the settlement.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I shall come to the question of referendums shortly.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Gentleman has not got much time.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Very shortly.

I shall finish on this point. Ironically, the Secretary of State and the Conservatives are trying to resist what the Liberal Democrats want—for trust to be placed in the Assembly to dispatch primary powers in a fashion similar to the Scottish Parliament and for trust to be placed in the Welsh people, through the electoral process, to elect Assembly Members whom they trust with those responsibilities. As it is at the moment, the Secretary of State's office has the enormous power to run with or kill legislation.

We have seen the taming of the three Welsh Conservative Members. It is a delight to note the influence that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has already had, but I am more than a little surprised by their mouse-like silence. The guns of Monmouth have been silenced, and the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) has been tamed by the new shadow Secretary of State for Wales. However, I suspect that underneath their docile fac"ade, those three hon. Members are still the same people whom we knew and loved before. I would counsel the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that, as the Liberal Democrats know all too well, a revolution can start with a whisper. If the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham wishes to lead her Back-Bench colleagues through the Lobby, she must explain what the transformation on the road to Damascus has been framed on. If the Conservatives really want to reassure us that they are pro-devolution, they must explain why, as the Secretary of State pointed out, they have tabled a reasoned amendment that would abolish the Bill before it had received its Second Reading—that is the nature of the vote. I have heard the words of the hon. Lady and her boss, but it will take more than words to convince me that there has been such a transformation and that a Conservative Government would be committed to devolution in the way in which I have described.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because the policy line that we are taking is obviously deeply upsetting to him. My three colleagues who represent Welsh constituencies and I are firmly wedded to giving the people of Wales a choice and trusting them. If we have a situation under this legislation in which Cardiff ends up with greater powers while Labour Members in Westminster say that they have not devolved primary legislative powers, we are seeing an act of political prestidigitation from the Secretary of State that would make Paul Daniels look like an amateur. If I can make common cause with the leader of my party and my three colleagues who represent Wales to give the people of Wales a choice, I shall do so. I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) will agree with me on that.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Let us move on to that point. We should remember that the Welsh Affairs Committee was unequivocal in saying that

"the Secretary of State's powers should be limited to refusing Orders in Council on the basis of procedure, and not on the merits of the policy aspiration."

The Committee did not ask for a referendum. Although the hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to call for a referendum, that is a matter of judgment, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to hold such a referendum.

It is the same story with the Government—this is where I respond to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Lord Richard called the Bill a "tortuous route" towards primary powers. We think that part of that tortuous route is putting a referendum between us and equivalence with Scotland. Hon. Members who feel that they cannot trust the Welsh Assembly, or trust the Welsh people to elect a competent Assembly, might want to support a referendum, but those of us who think that devolution means exactly that believe that the House has the authority and the duty to give the Welsh Assembly responsibilities comparable with those in Scotland.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

My hon. Friend mentioned the Richard commission, the report of which was well researched and clear. Does he agree that it is now the Government's responsibility to explain why they commissioned the work, but completely ignored what was said?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, those in government in Wales commissioned the report. It is interesting to note how quickly Labour Members want to distance themselves from those in government in the Cardiff Assembly. As my hon. Friend says, Lord Richard makes a serious and insightful contribution to devolution. The document shows that if an anti-devolution party were to come to power in Westminster, it could halt the devolution process indefinitely. Under the Bill, the scenario could occur whereby 90 per cent. of the Welsh public and 90 per cent. of the Assembly Members want primary powers and the Secretary of State could simply say no. Lord Richard was right to highlight the dangers, as is my hon. Friend.

The Bill was meant to tip the balance of power from Westminster to Cardiff, but instead it strengthens the Secretary of State's grip. On Orders in Council, primary powers and future referendums, he holds all the aces. The Welsh Assembly has to pull off a five-card trick to guarantee that it will get anywhere at all. If Labour were really pro-devolution, would it present us with this convoluted process, riddled with caveats and clauses, which could threaten the whole devolution process? At best, the impression is one of compromise. It seems as though the Government have conceded considerable ground to their own anti-devolution elements.

That perhaps explains the evident friction between what Labour Ministers say in this House and what Labour Assembly Members say at the other end of the M4, in Cardiff. That transparently seems to be the case on the issue of dual candidacy, on which there is commonality among all the Opposition parties. The issue has attracted considerable attention and will, I am sure, be discussed in Committee. Labour's policy of banning dual candidacy does not put our Secretary of State on quite the same moral level as Robert Mugabe, as somebody suggested, but there is little evidence that the measure is anything other than politically motivated.

Academics and non-partisan organisations, such as the Electoral Reform Society and the Electoral Commission, have all condemned the Government's proposals. Such people have found no evidence that dual candidacy, in the words of the Secretary of State,

"devalues the integrity of the electoral system"

or

"acts as a disincentive to voting in constituency elections"—[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 264.]

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Would the hon. Gentleman describe the Electoral Reform Society as a non-partisan organisation or does he think that it has a certain agenda to pursue?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Anybody who believes themselves to be a democrat and to be passionate about free speech will view that organisation as independent. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

The hon. Gentleman has just referred to himself as a democrat, so I must drag him back to the issue of giving the people of Wales a choice. Had it been left up to him, the people of the north-east would have had their regional tier of government. The fact is that they were given a referendum and they voted overwhelmingly against. What is he afraid of? Let us give the people a choice.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As I said, the Liberal Democrats feel that, in essence, the Welsh Assembly deserves the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. We asked the people in Wales and we doubled the number of seats in Parliament. We increased our share of the vote and we anticipate that we will do well in the Welsh Assembly elections. Let us not dwell on the matter, which is a matter of judgment; the Liberal Democrats and, I suspect, Plaid Cymru believe that we do not need a referendum to move forward.

The main issue on the Bill is devolution and the extent of the powers available to the Welsh Assembly. We have an historic opportunity to give Wales what it deserves: a proper law-making senate, just like the Scottish Parliament. If Labour had followed the Richard commission, we would be much closer to having that, but it has categorically failed to do so.

The Bill nevertheless offers potential. With finance, there is a great opportunity finally to end the injustice of the Barnett formula and to replace it with something fairer. We can change that situation if we choose to do so, through our dialogues in the Committee sittings, as set out in the programme motion, with which we agree. We can talk about the other details and elements by passing the Bill on Second Reading and seeking to amend it. In so doing, and in opposing the reasoned amendment because we feel it is anti-devolutionary, we must also be honest. The Government have an obligation to listen. Today, we shall support the Bill on the understanding that they will take feedback on the elements that are unsatisfactory and that can be improved upon in the interests of Wales. It will not be good enough if every Opposition amendment is simply defeated on the basis that the Government do not like to accept Opposition amendments and believe doing so to be weak.

We have major reservations about the Bill and major amendments to table in Committee. If they are taken on board, we will vote for the Bill to become law. If they are not, we will find it difficult to back a Bill that could set back the devolution process for 20 or 30 years. We believe that this Secretary of State is pro-devolution and that he has the opportunity to deliver to Wales what it requires. He can be a hero in the eyes of the Welsh. I hope that he does not sit on his hands and, by default, become a villain.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

May I say to hon. Members that no time limit was imposed on speeches by Back Benchers, but there is a long list of those wishing to speak in the remaining time available. If all hon. Members present are to make a contribution, 10 minutes would be a guide.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I join in the comments made by Members of the House about Tony Banks and particularly, from a Welsh point of view, about Merlyn Rees. He was a Cilfynydd boy, and a distinguished Home Secretary and Northern Ireland Secretary. We will miss them both.

I also warmly welcome the new shadow Secretary of State for Wales to her post. I know that Wales has a special place in her heart and we wish her well in her new job. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister for the enormous amount of work that they have put into the Bill and the arrangements before Parliament over the past months and years. The result of those efforts will be seen in the weeks ahead.

In 1979, my constituency of Torfaen voted overwhelmingly against devolution, and I was one of those who voted against. That was the case among most of the valley constituencies in south Wales and most of Wales itself. Some 20 years later, my constituency continued to vote against devolution, but it did so with the tiniest of majorities. I am unsure what it would do today were there a referendum on the issue, but I believe that it would probably vote in favour. There are two reasons for that.

The first, inevitably, is that the difference between 1979 and 1997 was nearly two decades of Conservative Government. In a country such as Wales, which overwhelmingly votes Labour, people felt that they needed the change. The second reason, which has not been touched on tremendously this evening but I am sure will be in the debates to follow, is that devolution is not about high constitutional principles but about how services are delivered to the people whom we represent.

That is the basis of devolution: do people get better health services, schools, planning or local government? It is not only about whether services improve in quality but about whether government is accessible and more accountable to people. To a large extent, accessibility is the one area that my constituents would regard as having changed during all those years.

I am not saying for one second that improvements are not necessary in service delivery in Wales—of course they are, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, people now understand that the Assembly exists to deliver the services so that people's lives can be improved. Does the Bill change that in any way? That is the question that we must consider on Second Reading and in Committee. The change in relation to the separation of powers is very important because the Assembly's corporate status simply has not worked and needs to be changed.

I was confused by the Conservative party's reasoned amendment. I am in favour of such amendments when they mean something, but this one means that the Opposition are inviting this House to turn down completely the Second Reading of the Bill. There is ample opportunity in Committee, on Report and in the other place to deal with the important issues. To reject the entire Bill on such a basis is wrong and is, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, bizarre.

The changes that will result from the Orders-in-Council provision are necessary. They are not especially dramatic and they will improve service delivery. In the past, including when I was Secretary of State, we transferred powers to the Assembly on several occasions. Fire services are an obvious example: they come under local government in England and should in Wales as well. There are other examples, including animal welfare, in which services or functions were devolved to the Assembly because it made sense so to do. The Order-in-Council procedure enhancing the legislative competence of the Assembly will make sense where the Assembly has responsibility.

I am a little doubtful—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the Father of the House—about the way in which Parliament will deal with scrutiny in that Order-in-Council process. I am not convinced that we have got that right yet. As Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend knows that the Order-in-Council provision, which is used to legislate while there is direct rule for Northern Ireland, does not allow for amendments to be made to legislation and that there is a limit of one and a half hours for debate. I know that putting on the face of the Bill improvements to our method of scrutiny would be a problem, but Parliament and the Government ought to consider in more detail how the process could be improved. Pre-legislative scrutiny, working with the Assembly Committees and extending the time for debate on Orders in Council will all be necessary, of course, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will also take on board the suggestions that I am sure will be made in Committee.

I do not think that a referendum is needed on the Orders-in-Council provision, and I certainly do not believe that one is needed on whether to allow dual candidacy. A referendum will be needed if primary powers are to be given to the Welsh Assembly, because that would fundamentally change the settlement on which we agreed back in 1997.

There might be a case in years to come for holding another referendum, on the way in which we elect Members to the National Assembly for Wales. The present system is confusing to our electors, and if an electoral system confuses the electors, it is not a good electoral system. I would prefer to have two-Member constituencies using an alternative vote system. That is what I argued for in the mid-1990s, but it did not happen. I doubt that it would be acceptable now, but it remains my preference. I would like to see a first-past-the-post system, but I do not think that that is likely to happen because it would fundamentally change the system on which people voted. If we want fundamentally to change the electoral system, there is a case for giving people the right to vote on that, because that would be meaningful.

The change in respect of dual candidacy is necessary. I do not think for one second that it would give any party an advantage. Different parties might have different rules on who should stand for what, but in terms of who is eventually elected, it will make no difference. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, six of our Labour colleagues in the Assembly could face defeat on the smallest of swings, but will not have the safeguard of standing for the top-up list.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

It will never happen, but a candidate on a list would have a vested interest in ensuring that his colleague standing in a winnable seat did not win. Would not that cause problems to the parties that currently benefit most from regional lists?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

It is for the individual parties to sort out how they select people for election.

That is a problem of the system. The additional member system that we have as a result of the 1997 settlement is fundamentally flawed. People do not understand it. They do not understand how an individual can stand in two ways for the same body on the same day in the same election and be defeated, then get elected a matter of an hour or two later. Equally if not more confusing is the fact that, in my constituency and in those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the south Wales valleys, thousands upon thousands of people vote Labour on their second vote, yet none of those votes is counted. I do not understand the logic of that. I can understand the technicalities, because I taught the subject many years ago when I was a teacher in a college of further education, but as an elector or as an elected representative, I think that it is terribly confusing and ought to be changed.

How can the system be changed? We should keep the 40 first-past-the-post AMs and the 20 top-up AMs should be elected on an all-Wales list based on strict proportionality, so that people are elected according to the number of votes cast throughout Wales for their party. That would be easily understood by the people of Wales. In the months and years ahead, there is a debate to be had about what changes might be made. If none is made, the top-up system will become increasingly discredited.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The method that the right hon. Gentleman proposes has something to commend it, but if such a system were to be adopted, there would be nothing to prevent the mischief about which the Secretary of State is so exercised, of someone on an all-Wales list identifying himself with a particular locality, which he wanted to seize in future under first past the post. Does not the argument advanced by the Secretary of State debase the debate that we ought to be having on the matter, on which the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is making an important point?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Someone on an all-Wales list standing in a strictly proportionate election going to a particular constituency and fighting it would be much less of a problem than it is now. Now, elections are fought on electoral subdivisions of Wales and in those much smaller divisions it is more than possible—indeed, it is happening—for individual list Members to go to a constituency and campaign to get elected as a candidate under first past the post. That is wrong, because the 20 top-up Members should bring something different to the Assembly and thus enhance it. That would be more likely if they were elected as I have suggested.

I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading today, because the people of Wales are served by all of us who are elected for that purpose, whether we serve in the House of Commons, the Assembly or local government. We are all there to serve those whom we represent and I believe that the Bill gives us an opportunity to improve the quality of life of all Welsh people.

Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

I agreed with almost every word that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said. He is right to say that the Bill will have long-term ramifications for Anglo-Welsh relations and the way in which our country develops.

I represent the border town of Shrewsbury. We have a long border with Wales and there are many issues common to Shrewsbury and Shropshire and the good people of Wales. Just last week, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who has now left the Chamber, came to the Royal Shrewsbury hospital in my constituency to fight for the services it provides because the vast majority of his mid-Wales constituents cross the border to use our services.

The United Kingdom is, in my view, one country—I am passionate about that—but the Bill and some previous pieces of legislation drive a wedge between England and Wales. When we cross the border, there are no passport checks or barriers, yet Parliament is starting to create huge gulfs between our two peoples. I shall give three or four examples of the way in which barriers are being erected between our two countries.

The first example is the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. Given the difference in policy of the Welsh Assembly and our authorities, my hospital in Shrewsbury loses more than £2 million every year. That is because the Welsh health authorities pay a different amount for their patients coming across the border compared with English patients. That is repeated over and over again in local newspapers. Shropshire newspapers state that we are subsidising the Welsh and ask why the Welsh should pay less. This is bad for cross-border relations.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

What is the hon. Gentleman's policy for resolving that problem, as he sees it?

Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

Although I believe in devolution, I believe also that there must be some form of joined-up government. The Welsh Assembly must be thinking along similar lines on certain issues, such as health, when it comes to cross-border services. That should certainly be taken into consideration.

I move on to targets and hospitals. One of the problems for the Welsh is that, because the Assembly pays less for patients, they have to face far longer targets. If someone is Welsh and he or she comes across the border to use my hospital, they will have to wait far longer for their operation than my constituents wait. Many Welsh citizens say to me that they feel second-class citizens because of the waits that they face, and that they find them entirely unacceptable.

My constituents are treated differently from Welsh citizens when it comes to prescribing drugs at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. Some Welsh patients receive drugs that my constituents are not allowed to have, and vice versa. This is appalling. Surely the Labour Government, a Government who talk so passionately about the NHS, should be talking about ensuring that services and drugs for patients are the same at a hospital, no matter where they come from.

I represent a border town and there are many farmers who own property on both sides of the border. They are frustrated by the differences in single farm payments with which they have to cope. These farmers get together at the Minsterley show every year to talk about how they are being treated in Wales and how they are being treated in England. Division is caused between the two sets of people.

The Secretary of State talked about accountability. I shall give one example of where the Welsh Assembly is not proving accountable to people in England. There is a major project on the Welsh-English border—the Middletown bypass—that is being considered by the Welsh Assembly. This huge bypass will come across the border into my constituency, yet it will be adjudicated on by the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, and the Welsh Assembly. We will have no input. Many acres of Shropshire countryside will be devastated by a huge bypass but we in Shropshire will have no say. We feel, as the Welsh felt in the past, a lack of accountability.

I shall talk about jobs, about which I feel passionately. Unemployment has increased in my constituency by 25 per cent. over the past 12 months. We have lost many jobs across the border to Wales. Welsh Members may say, "That is great. We are doing a better job than you are in attracting jobs." However, we are a united kingdom. We should be focusing on jobs throughout the country and not on poaching jobs from either side of the border on the basis that the Welsh Development Agency gives larger grants.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

For the hon. Gentleman's information, Wrexham and Alyn and Deeside are not in the objective 1 area and do not receive grant aid, in contrast to areas of Shropshire that receive grant aid under EU regulations.

Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

I am talking about the difference between Shrewsbury and Montgomeryshire, which affects Shrewsbury. The hon. Gentleman will have to speak to my counterpart on his side of the border.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the catalogue of issues that need resolving, it would have been an improvement to make the Welsh Assembly work better for the people of Wales and the people of the United Kingdom before the Secretary of State sought to change the way in which it legislates, and that his priorities are completely wrong? Instead of improving things for the people of Wales, he has sought once again to move the goalposts.

Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She has encapsulated in a far better way than I have the main thrust of my speech, which is that the proposed legislation is moving ahead quickly before certain fundamental issues that affect both our countries are addressed. Unless someone lives in a border area, as I do, he or she may not feel the deep concerns and passions that are felt by myself and by my constituents in respect of anomalous cross-border issues.

I recently met directors of a large American company who basically admitted to me that they had played us off one against the other—the Welsh Assembly and the English authorities—and that they drove up the grants that they demanded. I urge the Secretary of State and the Government to bear in mind the effect that their proposed legislation will have on English areas near the border.

Hywel Francis (Labour, Aberavon)

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on her new appointment. As Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I look forward to working with her. I pay tribute too to two great parliamentarians—Merlyn Rees, a true son of Cilfynydd, and Tony Banks.

As Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I wish to make a contribution to this important debate on the future government of Wales. On a personal note, I am encouraged by the constructive proposals in the Bill that have the capacity, I believe, to strengthen democracy, policy development and accountability within Wales. As someone who has actively supported democratic devolution for more than three decades in Wales, I am aware of the opportunities and also of some of the dangers swirling around the Bill. Most critically, I am aware of the need for a broad consensus within Wales to support the principles that underpin the proposals.

The devolution campaign in 1978–79 paid little real attention to the need for such a consensus; least of all, sad to say, within our own governing party. Even in 1997, a much more propitious time, we must acknowledge, and with barely an organised opposition, the referendum result was perilously close.

I am reminded of the prophetic words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who has made an important contribution to tonight's debate, when he was Secretary of State for Wales. He rightly characterised devolution as part of the long historic progress of Welsh and British democracy via the chartist and suffragette movements. Following the 1997 referendum vote, it was he who said, I believe borrowing from the late John Smith, that Welsh devolution was a "settled question". It was "settled" in the sense of no going back because the Welsh people had taken a vital democratic step forward through a referendum. He cautioned that further legitimate progress towards new powers could be made only with a further referendum sometime in the future.

My Committee considered the proposals contained within the White Paper and made a series of helpful recommendations that I believe will improve the proposed legislation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said previously that he would be responding in detail to my Committee's recommendations. I look forward to that response and I hope that he will be forthcoming in taking on board all of our recommendations.

The Government produced a White Paper rather than a draft Bill. That meant that there was insufficient detail for my Committee to consider when it looked at the Government's proposals, but it is an important piece of constitutional legislation for Wales and the Bill should have been submitted for proper pre-legislative scrutiny. We made that point in our report, because such scrutiny would have enabled us as parliamentarians and the wider public to assess properly the Government's intentions. It is regrettable that we could not do so.

I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced a free-standing Bill, rather than a Bill to amend the Government of Wales Act 1998. However, it represents only part of the solution. If there is to be absolute clarity about what powers rest with Parliament and what powers lie with the Welsh Assembly Government we need a Welsh statute book. Without one, an understanding of where the finer points of authority lie may remain beyond our grasp, so we made a recommendation that one should be established.

Our report welcomes the separation of the legislature and the Executive. The existing arrangements have bred confusion about the roles of the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly. A formal separation of the two will make it clear to the people of Wales that the Welsh Assembly Government are responsible for policy direction in Wales while the National Assembly is responsible for holding the Government to account.

We also recommended that the Bill use the term "Welsh Executive" rather than "Welsh Assembly Government". The current terminology reflects the maximum separation possible under the 1998 Act. Now that we have a new Bill, we no longer need the connection that the word "Assembly" in "Welsh Assembly Government" implies. The term "Welsh Executive" removes any connection or confusion with the National Assembly, and reinforces the formal separation between the Executive and the legislature in Cardiff. For that reason, we recommended that "Welsh Executive" replace "Welsh Assembly Government" in the Bill.

The meat of the Bill consists of the Government's proposals to enhance the powers of the National Assembly through the use of Orders in Council. The Government propose that requests for powers in certain areas be approved by Parliament with secondary legislation rather than primary legislation. That would have the benefit of providing Wales with the tools that it needs to pursue its policy aspirations while at the same time preventing legislation from being caught up in the busy timetable of the Government's legislative programme. I appreciate that not everyone is keen on using delegated legislation to confer powers on the National Assembly, as it is possible that draft orders will not receive adequate parliamentary scrutiny. For that reason, our report recommended that draft orders should be considered not in a Standing Committee but on the Floor of the House for one and a half hours. If there was cross-party consensus that a particular draft Order in Council needed a longer debate, we recommend that it should be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee. Furthermore, proposals for draft orders will be subject to detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has suggested that there is a role for the Welsh Affairs Committee in such scrutiny.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's chairmanship of the Committee led it to make certain proposals when it was unsighted about the Secretary of State's view, given the indecent haste with which the Bill was introduced. Does he agree that it would be better, not only if the Government tabled early amendments to the Bill but if they made a timely response to his Committee's recommendations, long before we scrutinise the Bill on the Floor of the House? Otherwise, we will once more be faced with a large raft of legislation and many Government amendments, together with a lack of a response to his Committee's excellent report.

Hywel Francis (Labour, Aberavon)

In a word, yes. The hon. Lady has anticipated what I was going to say.

If pre-legislative scrutiny is to be conducted properly, we will need more than just sight of the proposal for a draft order. In addition, the Government must publish a detailed memorandum that sets out precisely the scope of the draft order, the legislative authority that would pass to the National Assembly and the practical legal effects of the proposals on Wales. I was interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said about the impact of such measures on the rest of the United Kingdom.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

During our debate, there has been a blurring of the line between the draft order and the Assembly measure. The detail and the meat will be in the measure, not in the order, which is likely to be a brief document. How can pre-legislative scrutiny of the order give any reassurance to the House that it will be satisfied with the measure that will be introduced in the Assembly?

Hywel Francis (Labour, Aberavon)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point to which the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will respond in due course. I am not the Secretary of State.

The Bill allows for a final stage of devolution for Wales whereby the Assembly would become a fully functioning Parliament with primary legislative powers. I agree with the Government that a referendum of the people of Wales is necessary to determine that point, and I am pleased that many organisations and people across Wales concur. Recently, I was pleased to receive a resolution from the Presbyterian Church in Wales that supported such a referendum. My Committee believes that the Bill would benefit from certain enhancements. We need a strict limitation on the calling of a second referendum—a point that has been well made by other contributors to our debate. Referendums cannot be called persistently until they return the desired result, and that should be reflected in the Bill. The Committee came to the conclusion that two National Assembly terms are an appropriate period between a first and a subsequent referendum.

The Committee recommended, too, that the wording of the referendum should be included in the Bill. The question should be clear and straightforward—in essence, it simply has to ask the people of Wales whether or not they wish to have a Welsh Parliament. The wording is not dependent upon the time or year that the question is asked, so it can be set out now.

A key theme of our report is the roles of the Secretary of State, as set out in the Bill. Our report, like some participants in our debate, questioned the desirability of some of those roles. If we are serious about democratic devolution we need to move, or at least ease, the Secretary of State from a pre-devolutionary world to a modern democratic and decentralised one. I am sure that he would be happy to move with these new times.

In relation to draft Orders in Council, the Secretary of State would have the power to refuse to lay a draft order before Parliament. That power would be appropriate if the draft order did not comply with the Bill or did not conform to parliamentary rules. It would not, however, be appropriate for the Secretary of State to refuse an order on political or policy grounds. For that reason, the Committee believes that the rejection of a draft order is the preserve of Parliament, not the Government of the day. It would be more appropriate for the Secretary of State to be limited to assessing the validity of a draft order. He should not make decisions to lay such an order based on policy and political judgment or advantage. Similarly, the Secretary of State could refuse to lay the draft order for the referendum, despite the National Assembly voting by a two thirds majority in favour of holding that referendum. Again, we believe that Parliament, not the Government of the day, holds the authority to accept or reject a call for a referendum. For that reason, we recommend that the Secretary of State should not have the power to refuse a call for a referendum.

As readers of our report will see, there was no consensus on the Government's proposals for electoral reform. The majority support, as I do, the Government's proposals, and it should be noted that there was no minority report. My personal view is that, whatever the merits of the arguments on each side of the debate, the Government and all parties need to proceed on a cross-party basis. Electoral reform should not get caught up in internecine party politics. The Secretary of State may well wish to consider whether, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said in his contribution, the present system is an unloved and confusing creature that causes more grief than it is worth. I believe that, as he suggested, a national list may be a better option.

It is incumbent upon all Members to take the heat out of the debate on electoral reform and to find a way forward that gains cross-party consensus. Without that, the many welcome proposals in the Bill could be drowned out by the argument on what is for many of us a very minor part of a welcome improvement to the devolution settlement for Wales. The Secretary of State has it in his gift as the sponsor of the Bill to give serious consideration to other proposals.

Finally, as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I have been at pains to recognise that all parties have made a contribution to the journey of the people of Wales towards democratic devolution. Unless we recognise this, particularly in the absence of an historic Welsh convention, we are in danger of failing to learn the lessons of history, although I should add, as an objective historian, that my party, the Labour party, had the decisive role in achieving victory in 1997 and, I have to acknowledge, a defeat in 1979.

Today there should be consensus around the belief that the Government of Wales Bill is about delivering better public services for the people of Wales and greater democratic accountability to the people of Wales. The Welsh Affairs Committee has a vital role to play in ensuring that the diverse views of the people of Wales are clearly heard in Westminster. We aim to champion the people of Wales here and certainly not to challenge or undermine our National Assembly. Together, as Welsh Members in Parliament and in the Assembly, we can work in harmony to strengthen our public services, and together we can strengthen our democracy in Wales. The Bill has the potential to do that, if the Secretary of State listens, as I am sure he will, to the constructive proposals being made tonight in the House and outside the House in Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I add my sincere condolences to the words already uttered regarding Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Stratford. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on taking over the brief for the Wales Office. However, it is not her golden hour. Like others, I find it strange that a reasoned amendment has been tabled, but she has made her case—unconvincingly, with respect.

For the most part, the Bill is welcome, but there are parts of it that need strengthening and amendment. If, as has become standard procedure, the Government introduce a raft of amendments before Report, it would undoubtedly ease the process if the same were made available to all in good time, with cogent explanatory notes.

There is a broad consensus in favour of the separation of the Executive from the legislature. That is to be welcomed. Less welcome is the assertion in the Bill that pursuant to such change, there is a need for change in the National Assembly standing orders and that those standing orders must be made by the Secretary of State for Wales. Why is that so, when the core point is to ensure that the National Assembly is able to take charge of new powers for itself? Given that we have a democratic institution that is up and running, surely the Assembly could be left to look after its own House and its own standing orders. I hope that that will be the case in due course, contrary to some of the suggestions made earlier.

Before examining specific aspects of the Bill, it is right to point out that the better governance of Wales could have been assured in a bolder, simpler and more transparent way had the Government followed the full proposals of the Richard commission. In that regard the Bill represents a missed opportunity. It is all the more disappointing because the lost opportunity came about because of internal wrangling in new Labour, so we have a Bill that is the progeny of a 13(2)(b) fudge adopted so conveniently by the First Minister. I make that overtly political point because it means that the better governance of Wales is to be put on hold for over a decade at the behest of a few selfish new Labour Back Benchers from Wales. Perhaps the more important point is that we are left with an unnecessarily complex and cumbersome procedure for legislating in the National Assembly. As a member of the Richard commission said, it is a system that will work only if there is an enormous amount of pulling in the same direction between Cardiff and Westminster.

Before examining the triple lock procedure for getting an Order in Council, let us consider the inordinate delays that already exist in introducing legislation by Order in Council. I shall give the House an example of a measure that has taken more than three years to come about in the National Assembly. It is entirely uncontentious and is entitled the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2005. The Minister grins. I had a private discussion with him some time ago, in which I expressed my concern about the delays in the Orders-in-Council procedure. I said that sometimes it takes between 18 months and two years. The Minister shook his head and said that I had got the timing wrong.The real example that I gave started its journey on 10 April 2002 and finished in November 2005, so I might just have been right in my estimate. That is more than three years.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

The hon. Gentleman said two.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Did I? As usual, I am being generous to the Government. However, it is a genuine concern and I hope the procedure can be streamlined. The Second Reading debate is not the time for such a discussion, but in Committee I hope to go through what happened during the passage of that order.

We need to find ways of streamlining the process if it is to be fit for purpose. The triple lock procedure is worrying. The National Assembly, the Executive, the Counsel General or a Member of the Assembly can present a request to the Secretary of State for Wales. The Secretary of State calls that "making a bid", which is a rather unfortunate choice of words, as it implies an element of lottery. In any event, if the Secretary of State declines, the legislation will not advance.

One can think of any number of reasons or excuses that a less sympathetic Secretary of State than the right hon. Gentleman might employ—for example, "I shall not accept the proposed measure because it is the UK Government's intention to legislate for England and Wales in a similar way in the future." That would be a perfectly reasonable response. It could also be a brake put on the National Assembly by Westminster for less benign reasons. As I said earlier in an intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, we should consider including in the Bill some form of review or appellate procedure.

Clause 94 gives the Secretary of State 60 days after receipt of the request for a measure to lay a draft or to give written notice to the First Minister of his refusal to do so and the reasons for that refusal. Crucially, it is not clear what would happen next. The White Paper suggested that the Secretary of State should not decline to lay an order for "trivial" reasons, which is hardly comforting because common sense dictates that that must be the case.

The big question concerns where an appeal will lie. I am not saying that the National Assembly will always be right, but the Bill contains sufficient safeguards on policy, other legislation and the supreme court. What will happen if the Secretary of State denies the National Assembly's settled will for whatever reason? Some commentators have said that the next stage would be judicial review. As I have said, far be it from me to steer work away from my fellow lawyers, many of whom are going hungry because of the Government's recent prevarications, but I view the prospect of multiple judicial reviews with absolute dismay, because it means that we are introducing a flawed system. The real issue is the need for an unambiguous review or appellate procedure to address unusual situations, and I hope that we examine that matter carefully in Committee and consider how best to address it. It is little short of a constitutional outrage for the decision to lie with the Secretary of State alone, which is no better than a decision by the Secretary of State in the old Wales Office before democratic devolution.

It is worth considering the possibility of referral by the Counsel General to the supreme court, which would be similar in essence to the referral powers in clauses 95 and 98—when I referred to clause 101 earlier, I meant clause 98. That suggestion is not unreasonable, because the basis of a referral for judicial review is whether a public body or a person acting as a public body—in this case, the Secretary of State—has acted reasonably in executing its function, and the same question could equally well be put to the supreme court under the powers in the Bill.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. The difficulty is, however, that if anyone wanted to land the judiciary with the problem of its becoming politicised, they would ask it to resolve such a question. As it stands, the question is not a legal question because it involves the exercise of a political discretion by the Secretary of State, which is not a semi-judicial or administrative function.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The core point would be whether the Secretary of State acted reasonably in the circumstances. It is clear that the supreme court should not examine a policy area, and I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the danger. I would have preferred the Bill to contain a more streamlined procedure and a normal reasonableness test.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose—

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The hon. Gentleman is about to kick me again.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am not seeking to kick the hon. Gentleman, and we must return to that important matter in Committee. He has rightly raised the question whether the Secretary of State should have the power to veto the procedure as opposed to Parliament.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and have no doubt that the matter will be subject to considerable debate in Committee. Many believe that there must be a means of reviewing the decision. If the Bill is left as it stands, it will be an affront to the National Assembly. The potential blockage could—I believe that this will be inevitable—cause considerable friction between both legislatures and, potentially, both Executives, and an unambiguous and rigorous safeguard is therefore required.

Clause 100 continues the theme, which runs through the Bill, of the Secretary of State's influence and power, to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who is a repetitious man, referred several times. From my reading of clause 100, a less worthy man than the present Secretary of State could scupper the Assembly's legislative plans on a whim, perhaps because of hostility towards the Assembly and irrespective of the subject matter of any proposed legislation. In particular, I direct hon. Members' attention to the powers in clause 101, which is very widely drawn. If such draconian powers were invoked, how would oversight take place? Again, the matter could form a constitutional time bomb that must be defused in due course.

On the Secretary of State for Wales approving a draft measure by laying an order, we still face the difficulty that the other place has taken a consistently critical view of Orders in Council, principally because Orders in Council are unamendable. I raised that point when the Secretary of State made his initial statement earlier this year, and he said that the Parliament Act would be invoked in that case. In my view, consideration from the very beginning of the use of the Parliament Act in the working of the Bill is evidence of a fundamental flaw, and the situation is a recipe for disaster and constitutional conflict.

Put simply, if it is envisaged that the Parliament Act must be invoked regularly, the system is surely wrong from the beginning. I expressed that view when the Secretary of State made his initial statement and have seen no evidence to the contrary. As Lord Richard said in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 25 October 2005:

"I have got some major qualifications about it, particularly on the Orders in Council procedure where I think, frankly, the idea that that is going to get an easy ride going through Parliament in principle to start off with is doubtful."

Even if Lord Richard was being a tad pessimistic, and if even the other place gives the Bill a fair passage, we are still left with a procedure that is likely to be very unpopular with their lordships, regardless of which Government are in power down the Corridor. It would have been much better to have accepted the Richard commission proposals in full.

I repeat my earlier question: will the Salisbury convention apply to proposed measures from the National Assembly Executive?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

rose—

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I had hoped that the Minister would respond, but I have got a Whip—

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

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?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

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.

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.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

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 (Labour, Wrexham)

It was two out of three.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

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 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 Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

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 (Labour, Ogmore)

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."

It says that they

"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.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

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 not of the Assembly as a whole? In a sense, therefore, these measures will reduce consultation rather than enhance it.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Enhanced consultation is set out clearly in the Bill, and there are key words such as "sustaining" and "promoting" the interests of various sectors, but that is absent when it comes to the business community. The words are indicative of the approach. Clause 75 says:

"Welsh Ministers must carry out consultation with such organisations representative of business . . . as they consider appropriate having regard to the impact of the exercise by the Welsh Ministers of their functions on the interests of business."

Business by its nature is to do not only with business interests and economic regeneration but with transport, education and skills, and so many other aspects, so if we are seriously to empower all sectors to contribute to the Welsh agenda—the team Wales approach—we need to bring business much more into line. There is provision to make that work, but it needs to be more explicit in the Bill.

I turn to the highly controversial question of regional Members and first-past-the-post Members. I note that Lord Richard, the chair of the commission, stated:

"There is something wrong in a situation in which five people can stand in Clwyd, none of them can be elected, and then they all get into the Assembly. On the face of it that does not make sense. I think a lot of people in Wales find that it does not."

Many Members who were supportive of the PR settlement in Wales have become disenchanted with it. The problem is the type of PR that we have imposed on the Assembly. I challenge Conservative Members to say that the system has not been abused. I will happily provide examples, and will do so in Committee if I am chosen to serve on it. There has been abuse and that is the problem, and Lord Richard recognises that.

Under the Bill, regional and constituency Members will have to describe themselves more accurately. That is not political niggling. At the moment, regional Members have the ability to cherry-pick and to promote themselves as local in one area or as supporting a popular or a good campaigning issue but to hide from tricky issues. That is not promoting democracy; it is an abuse of the democratic system. Let them be a regional Member and take the rough with the smooth. Let them put their office not where they think they will win a seat—it could be an Assembly first-past-the-post seat or a Westminster seat—but in the areas of most need. That is where my offices are. There seems to be no interest in doing that. If regional Assembly Members seriously intend to tackle problems where, in their wide constituencies, there is greatest need and the most challenges, let them take their offices there and let us test that. At the moment, that is not happening. We have been accused of gerrymandering, but I throw that straight back. Too often we have seen the use of newspapers and the placing of advertisements and offices.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I asked the Secretary of State earlier: how would the Bill remedy what seems to concern the hon. Gentleman and other Members? It seems to me to be part of the rough and tumble of politics—perhaps he does not like that.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I do not suffer any great disadvantage under the present system, but there are two equal but slightly different types of Assembly Member. A regional Assembly Member masquerading as local here and local there as he chooses is not the rough and tumble of politics but misrepresentation. Missives and memos, which have now been discarded, have said that that could never happen and that it was a case purely of an Assembly Member putting forward some ideas, but the very putting forward of those ideas is testament to the fact that an Assembly Member thought that the current system could be abused. That is what we are trying to change.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I want to take up the hon. Gentleman on his point, because he clearly takes the view that there should be two categories of Assembly Member. Although there may be two routes into the Assembly, it is dangerous to say that members of a corporate body have a different status in relation to each other. That is why I am troubled by the Government's approach, although I am sympathetic to some of the hon. Gentleman's points. I am a believer in first past the post and always have been, but the tinkering around the edges of the PR system that he and the Secretary of State are proposing is iniquitous. If there is to be a PR system, it should be on a national basis, and not just for Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I return to the point—and I think that the Bill envisages the situation—that Assembly Members should be equal but different. A local constituency first-past-the-post Assembly Member has a specific constituency interest and a right to describe themselves as local and to campaign on issues specific to that constituency. It is regrettable and it was never envisaged that regional Assembly Members would choose to make use of the system to make political capital rather than to work on behalf of the area. Unfortunately, as we saw in the memo that was circulated, one Assembly Member envisaged where that could easily be done. It can, and I am afraid that the evidence is there for everybody to see.

Lord Richard talks of how, the morning after, Assembly Members who had been denied the chance of first past the post were suddenly resurrected. That causes immense confusion. It is a Lazarus-like resurrection, except that he had the decency to wait at least three days. Assembly Members who have been rejected outright by their electorate are suddenly back in place. As the Secretary of State said, the question of choosing one or the other is not simply to the advantage of one party. It will also be the case for Labour Members.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Is it not the case that under our system members of the public have a chance to reject people? Under the system that the hon. Gentleman proposes, they will not have that chance but the Assembly Member may still pop up the next day. Should he not have the intellectual honesty to admit that the proposals set out in "Llais Dros Gymru" in the first place were incorrect? If he wants to do away with proportional representation altogether, he might be surprised at where the support for that comes from.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

There is a perfectly coherent proposal in the Bill, which is to choose one or the other. It is the same for all political parties and every Member will have that choice.

This Bill should be supported on Second Reading. Conservative Front Benchers know that they can raise their objections during subsequent stages. If they choose to push their amendment to a Division and to reject the Bill out of hand, they will be objecting to the principle of devolution. If there is one thing on which the other parties are united, it is that the Welsh public should be given the opportunity if they wish to take forward devolution. It should not be rejected out of hand as the Conservative amendment seeks to do.

Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire)

Whatever questions people in Wales are currently asking about devolution, I do not believe that the Bill provides the answers. It contains useful measures to enhance the effectiveness of the Assembly's workings, which I welcome, but at its heart lies a very unwelcome political fix. I refer to part 3, which sets out the Order-in-Council procedure for granting further law-making powers to the Assembly.

By constructing a hugely complex procedure whereby the Assembly can essentially legislate for itself in the fields devolved to it by part 1 of schedule 5, and which requires Parliament to give its consent, the Secretary of State has pulled off the ultimate devolution trick. He can tell his impatient pro-devolution colleagues in the Assembly that he has given them full law-making powers in all but name. He can also tell colleagues who are more cautious about devolution—some may be present now—that Parliament is retaining its sovereignty and that part 3 does not constitute a significant extension of current practice. It is a political fix and I do not believe that the British constitution should be bent and shaped by such a fix.

Apart from the constitutional issues, I am very concerned about the way in which the Order-in-Council procedure would work in practice. It seems to rely heavily on a large measure of good will and shared objectives on the part of the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly Government. It is not difficult to envisage circumstances in which the relationship might not be so cordial and the scope for disappointment, confusion and, perhaps, legislative breakdown could be considerable.

If we are to extend and deepen the devolution settlement, the Order-in-Council mechanism, which emasculates Parliament and bypasses a referendum, is certainly not the way to do it. Without doubt, the Bill develops the settlement in a way to which the people of Wales never assented when they voted by a 1 per cent. majority to establish the Assembly in 1997. It is simply not true that, as the Secretary of State would have us believe, the Government of Wales Act 1998 provided for exactly this kind of arrangement.

As has already been said today, Lord Richard himself argued that the proposals for Orders in Council had the potential to be a

"concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff".

Professor Rawlings of the London School of Economics has argued that the approach could be described as a

"form of quasi-legislative devolution".

The claim that the Order-in-Council procedure is nothing more than what was agreed to by the Welsh people in 1997 is a bizarre and misleading interpretation of the Bill. The truth is that it goes significantly beyond what was agreed to following the referendum eight years ago—which is why, if part 3 is to be implemented, it should be implemented only after a new referendum decision.

The one fundamental driving force for devolution should be the people of Wales, and what they want for their country. If they want to take the devolution settlement further to give the Assembly full law-making powers, let us get on with it by using part 4. If they do not want that, let us not try to bring it about by using a byzantine alternative route that would risk further alienating Welsh people from the body that is supposed to bring decision making closer to them. It is essential for those making policy to move in step with Welsh opinion. Otherwise, they will risk creating an even more remote devolved body that will lack real meaning for the Welsh people.

It is worth reminding ourselves just how divided the Welsh nation was over the original devolution question in 1997. Wales was split down the middle on whether to create the National Assembly. Eleven of the 22 Welsh local authority areas returned no verdicts, while just 559,000 people—a mere 25 per cent. of the Welsh electorate—voted in favour. At the time, many of us believed strongly that that was a flimsy basis for the creation of an Assembly that could command popular legitimacy and interest, but we in the Conservative party accepted the fact of devolution and, as many neutral commentators have said, the Conservative group in the Assembly has perhaps worked harder than anyone else to make the institution work. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that large chunks of the Welsh electorate are disengaged from devolution.

At the first Assembly election in 1999, there was a 46 per cent. turnout and just over 1 million people voted. In 2003, only 850,000 votes were cast. There was a 38 per cent. turnout, about the same as the United Kingdom turnout for the 2004 elections to the European Parliament, an institution that is supposed to represent the very paragon of remoteness to the people of this country. That is a dreadful record for such a young institution, which was set up to satisfy some unmet desire for devolution on the part of the Welsh people.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, if there is a referendum, one of the questions posed ought to be, "Should there be any Assembly at all?"?

Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire)

My view is that the Welsh Assembly is not going to go away. [Interruption.] Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I have said in the past that a future referendum question should include the option of abolishing the Assembly altogether. I think that that could constitute a healthy democratic mechanism to allow the venting of the significant stream of opinion in Wales that does not favour its existence. I do not believe that that stream of opinion would win—I do not think that there is a majority in favour of abolition, and I do not think that the Assembly will disappear at any point in the near future—but, at the beginning of 2006, we are being asked to believe that there is a consensus in Wales on the need to extend and deepen the devolution settlement, and that the Bill is necessary at this time. It takes a huge leap of the imagination to accept that.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clear up a confusion that has arisen in my mind. I seem to remember that, during the Select Committee's discussions, he favoured a referendum including the option of abolition of the Assembly. Perhaps he could enlighten us on what has changed his mind.

Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire)

I think that my response to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) answers that question as well. The hon. Gentleman will recall from those Committee discussions that I thought that it would be healthy for the Welsh democratic process to allow the significant stream of opinion in the Principality that still has not come round to the idea of devolution, and would rather see it scrapped, to be aired. I do not think we should be afraid of that. I do not believe that it is deeply damaging, or even anti-Welsh, to suggest that a referendum should include such a question, and I remember that two Labour members of the Committee agreed with me.

Let us be clear about this. I do not oppose further devolution, if the people of Wales choose it. I have no problem with stage 3 devolution as envisaged in part 4. Full devolution following a strong, positive referendum result is essential, however: it cannot be introduced through the back door without an opportunity for the people of Wales to vote. The problem lies in the constitutional trickery in part 3—the Order-in-Council procedure.

The Secretary of State has spoken on a previous occasion of his dislike of referendums and has said that other issues can be bundled into a referendum campaign so that what might have begun as a question about a specific issue becomes a mechanism for disgruntled voters to sound off about their general unhappiness with the Government of the day. That is a fair point. I well understand why he is concerned about how the electorate might behave after nine long years of his cynical Government. I think, though, that he underestimates the sophistication of the Welsh electorate when it comes to thinking about their Assembly. We should have nothing to fear from a referendum. The pace and direction of devolution must be dictated only by the Welsh people.

As a member of the Select Committee, I want to record my disappointment at the way in which the Government produced the Bill without even waiting for the Committee to publish its report on the White Paper. That makes a mockery of pre-legislative scrutiny. Perhaps I should not be surprised, however. At no point during his appearance before the Committee for the inquiry did the Secretary of State appear to be in listening mode. That was particularly evident when he and the First Minister were asked about the proposals for altering electoral arrangements for constituency and regional list Members. Committee members will recall their double act when they sought, outrageously, to trash the reasonable and considered concerns put by the Electoral Commission and by Dr. Richard Wyn Jones and Dr. Roger Scully of Aberystwyth university, who said that the new arrangements could be seen as serving partisan interests and could therefore undermine confidence and participation in the electoral process. The First Minister laid into them, saying

"I think this is not their finest hour",

and claiming that their statements were "poor and unsupported". The Secretary of State himself then accused the Electoral Commission of being out of touch with political reality. It was all very unsavoury. Those tactics only served to reinforce the impression that deep partisan motivation underlies the changes in the electoral arrangements, and that the Labour party has no desire to achieve any cross-party consensus on the issue.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

The hon. Gentleman has been very honest in his answers to earlier interventions. Does he agree with his own Conservative association? He has named academics that gave evidence, but is he listening to his own constituency association, the only Conservative association in the UK to give evidence? Does he support it, yes or no?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.