Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill — [2nd Allotted Day]

House of Commons, 28 February 2006.

Clause 45 — Welsh Assembly Government

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 27, line 32, leave out 'Assembly Government' and insert 'Executive'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in page 27, line 37, leave out 'Assembly Government' and insert 'Executive'.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

The purpose of the amendments is to ensure a consistent approach to the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom. Such consistency has not been evident in much of the debate—we seem to have moved away from the idea that there should be a coherent approach to the devolved Administrations. In Spain, there is something that is often called "asymmetric devolution," whereby different parts of the country are governed in different ways, but I do not accept that difference is needed for difference's sake.

In Scotland for the past six and a half years, the clear and accepted description of the Administration in the Scottish Parliament has been "the Scottish Executive." Were the equivalent body in Northern Ireland fully functioning, it would be called "the Northern Ireland Executive". It seems logical, coherent and beneficial to efforts to promote wider understanding of the functions of the devolved bodies that in Wales we replace the rather uncomfortable phrase, "Assembly Government" with "Executive."

To have a coherent system throughout the United Kingdom, with a Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Executive and a Welsh Executive, would allow and promote better understanding of what the Executives do, compared with the Assembly or Parliaments. Indeed, it would also assist debates in this House, because hon. Members' references to "the Executive" would be clearer. A degree of coherence that has not previously been evident would be brought to the whole package if the amendments were made.

As I am sure the Minister knows, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs thought that "Executive" was a better term than "Assembly Government". The arguments advanced within the Committee have merit, which should commend them to the Minister. I hope that the amendments will be regarded as non-contentious and that they will attract Government support.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Briefly, the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) has made a coherent case for the amendment, but I counsel him against building up his hopes, as the hallmark of this Government on naming things is inconsistency. He will recall the debate in which the Government opposed a proposal to call the Welsh Assembly the Welsh Senedd, because they were worried that the public would mix up the political institution with the building. We now have the Welsh Assembly in a Welsh Senedd building, which is typical of the fuzzy logic that we have come to expect on naming. Here is my tuppenny-worth: consistency is needed, but we should also accept that we are aiming to establish a Welsh Government.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

My hon. Friend will agree that it is important that the people of Wales should be able to distinguish between the Government and the Welsh Assembly. Too often, the Assembly has taken the blame for poor action by the Government. That contrasts with the golden age of Welsh devolution, in which a Liberal Democrat-led coalition delivered for Wales. The Labour Government, however, do not deliver for Wales.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

My hon. Friend has made a brilliant and insightful point, which doubtless makes the Minister's skin crawl as he remembers paradise lost and the brief halcyon era of the Welsh Assembly in which the Liberal Democrats led the way and ensured the only period of stability during the Assembly administration. He makes an important point, too, about the need to distinguish between the Government of Wales and the Assembly as an institution.

In conclusion, the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale rightly pointed out that that can be achieved with his wording, but I would prefer the whole thing to be called the Senedd. On balance, I prefer the word "Government" to "Executive".

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

This is a modest demand, and a perfect opportunity for the Government to concede one amendment to the Opposition parties. We are only talking about a name change—it does not change the concrete constitutional settlement one iota, so I hope that the Under-Secretary will find it in his heart to offer us some charity. Names are important—we know that is the case in Wales, which has a logocentric culture—because they are part of the means by which people understand their political institutions. The separation of powers is one of the most important principles in the democratic tradition, and it has been enshrined belatedly but happily in the new settlement.

The problem is terminological inexactitude, which was cobbled together—[Hon. Members: "Oh!]. All without notes, I hasten to add. An informal arrangement was cobbled together in about 2000, but it is now being formalised, unfortunately. The phrase is inelegant, infelicitous and inaccurate, and it does not allow us to clarify for the Welsh electorate where political responsibility lies. There is an important principle at the heart of accountability. The National Assembly for Wales includes all the parties that are represented, and its Government includes the party—[Interruption.] I am reminded that it includes more than one party in coalition. We therefore require clarity on the issue.

I am all for constitutional innovation, but I could find only one other example of a national assembly Government in history. The Turkish republic had two Governments at one time—an Ottoman Government in Istanbul and a national assembly Government in Ankara under Kemal Atatürk. That was a difficult period in Turkish history, and it is the one example in history of something like a national assembly Government. It is a misnomer and we should take the opportunity offered by the Bill to bury it. We do not have a United Kingdom Parliament Government. We do not have a Scottish Parliament Government. Why should we be left with the strange phrase, "Welsh Assembly Government"? It mystifies most of us, it will certainly mystify the Welsh electorate, and the Minister should accept this not unreasonable demand from the Opposition parties.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and by the Welsh Affairs Committee in its report on the Bill. However, the Government do not agree that using the title "Welsh Assembly Government" will perpetuate confusion over the different roles of the Executive and the Legislature. Rather, changing the title at this stage is likely to cause even more confusion than keeping the names with which people are already familiar. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) said, the name has been in place for five or six years. People understand what the Welsh Assembly Government is, and a change to another name would cause confusion.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

May I ask a common-sense question? Does not the Minister find the acronym WAG a little silly?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

No, I do not, and nobody burst out laughing when the hon. Gentleman mentioned it.

Hon. Members referred to the Scottish Executive. In Scotland, the term "Scottish Executive" has been used since devolution and it is now familiar and well understood, but the Government do not believe that that is a reason for changing a term that is now familiar in Wales. I see no problem. It has been argued that there is confusion between the Assembly and the Government. The term "Welsh Assembly Government" provides clarity. It is not a terminological inexactitude, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr suggested. It is quite clear. We have no intention of changing the name, so I ask the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale to withdraw his amendment.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

I am disappointed by the Minister's response to a reasonable suggestion. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill we were told that it was designed to set the framework for a generation, so it would have been worth taking the opportunity to add a much clearer definition of the roles of our devolved institutions within the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made a valid point. One of the great challenges of the devolved arrangements is the attempt, particularly under Labour stewardship, to tie in the institution with the Government, and to channel towards the institution any form of public dissatisfaction with the Government. With respect to public services, it is not necessarily the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly that is not delivering, but the Administrations within those institutions, and we need to work further—

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Labour Welsh Assembly Government introduced the distinction between the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales?

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

The Labour Welsh Assembly Government had to take a degree of responsibility for their actions. Both the Scottish and Welsh institutions are governed by majority decisions, rather than by communal decisions of the entire body. The Welsh Affairs Committee has recognised that the addition of the word "Executive" would provide the new UK devolved settlement with a degree of coherence, so the Minister's argument is unsatisfactory. I will not divide the House on this issue.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Gentleman was right to table the amendment. The point made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who has unfortunately left the Chamber—no doubt he was blown away by the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument—underlines how important it is that we never again get into a situation in which an entire institution carries the blame for the errors of the Government of the day.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the Minister had been willing to accept the amendment, common sense would have prevailed. Sadly, that is not the case, but I am glad that we have had the opportunity to put the issue on the record.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51 — Limit on number of ministers

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 30, line 25, leave out clause 51.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Limit on number of Ministers (No. 2)—

'(1) Not more than eight persons are to hold the office of Welsh Minister appointed under section 48 at any time.

(2) Not more than three person are to hold the office of Deputy Welsh Minister at any time.'.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

The amendment and the new clause are designed to engender a debate about the appropriate number of Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government and the difference between full Ministers and Deputy Ministers. We also need to consider how many Assembly Members are not members of the Welsh Assembly Government. If the Assembly contains 12 Ministers, the First Minister and Presiding Officers, then the number of Members available to carry out non-governmental functions in the Assembly is reduced. We must be confident that the number of Members who do not hold Government office is sufficient to scrutinise the work of the Assembly Government.

No such limit was stipulated in the Scotland Act 1998, and it is clear from experience in Scotland that following the arrival of an institution the number of Ministers can grow exponentially. Scotland had five Ministers under the Conservative Government, but it now has 22 Ministers performing the same functions—at a significantly greater cost.

Irrespective of whether one argues in favour of devolution, it cannot be argued that more people doing the same thing is a successful form of it. We must instead focus on whether the proposed number of Ministers is appropriate in light of the value that they bring to the role and the ability of the Assembly's Committees to function satisfactorily. The ability of Committees to function with a number of non-governmental or Presiding Officer Members would leave in the mid-40s the number of Members who are available for Committee work. The provision does not differentiate the role of Minister from that of Deputy Minister, so we could end up with 12 fully paid Ministers.

Throughout the debate, there has been inconsistency about what should be in the Assembly's Standing Orders and what should be in the Bill. We must be clear about whether the Assembly should determine through its own procedures how many Ministers it has. If we are going to determine the number, we must ensure that the ministerial cohort is effective. There is no point in having 12 Ministers simply because the Bill says that there can be that number.

We also need to clarify whether the proposed arrangements are thought of purely in the context of part 3 arrangements. If part 4 arrangements were to come into being, would the number stay the same or need to be revised?

In Committee, there was considerable debate about an amendment that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) tabled and how many Assembly Members were needed to make the Assembly function more effectively, especially in the context of the part 4 powers. Although the amendment was not successful, it is important to focus on the right number of Members for an effective Assembly Chamber.

The Government have already changed their minds about the Scottish Parliament. In the Scotland Act, the Government's initial policy was to link the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament directly with that of Westminster Members of Parliament representing Scotland. I fear that the Government's guiding principle in constitutional matters—expediency—prevailed and the link was broken. The Scottish Parliament will continue to have 129 Members, who no longer relate to the constituencies of Scottish Members of this House. At least that decision led to the Arbuthnott report, about which we have heard much, and has been useful for the debate on the Bill. Indeed, the Arbuthnott report has been discussed more here, in the context of the measure, than in the Scottish Parliament or by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

A difficult position has been created whereby there is no link between Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament. That problem would clearly arise in the Welsh Assembly if there were to be more Assembly Members. It is therefore especially interesting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said, that Labour Members appear to be completely unwilling to discuss appropriate numbers, should the part 4 provisions come into force.

It is appropriate to encourage debate on the appropriate number of Assembly Members to allow the Assembly to function with a Government of the size that the Government propose or in accordance with our amendment. I hope that our amendments will facilitate the debate.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

We welcome the definition for Deputy Ministers—it is a fair step forward. I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) about Committees. We must take care—I believe that the Government in Cardiff will take care—that there are enough Back Benchers to ensure sufficient numbers on Committees. The number of Assembly Members imposes its own limit, given that there are only 60.

We do not want to fetter the First Minister in the way in which he—or even she—might want to appoint Ministers.

The Record of Proceedings for the Assembly's Committee that considered the Bill shows that the Tories in Cardiff tabled an amendment, which would have provided:

"The number of Welsh Ministers shall not exceed 8 and the number of Deputy Welsh Ministers shall not exceed 5".

Perhaps the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale could explain the reason for that change.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I should like to speak in support of the amendment. As a Member of the Welsh Assembly, I was quite perturbed when the Labour Administration announced that they were creating a new post of Deputy Minister. Such people would appear to want to have their cake and eat it, because in addition to standing in and answering questions for Ministers who are away, they will be able to put on their Back-Bench hat and start asking questions themselves. That would not happen in this Chamber. I have also noticed that, as well as claiming to be Ministers in their own right, they will be able to sit on Committees as Back-Bench Assembly Members.

There is a great deal of confusion about the constitutional role of a Deputy Minister, and it has even been suggested that the position is simply a means for the Labour party to shore up a bit of support on its Back Benches by handing out a bauble that some people might find enough to assure their loyalty. Of course, I would never suggest such a thing, but I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for clarity on the constitutional role of a Deputy Minister and for a firm upper limit on the numbers involved, so that the posts cannot simply be handed out as a way of shoring up Back-Bench support for the Administration.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The problem here is not the concept of Deputy Ministers or the number of them that a First Minister might want to appoint. The problem is that the Assembly is not big enough to cope with the job that it has been given. The Liberal Democrats have proposed to increase the number of Assembly Members in order to get round the difficulties that we are discussing.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon. Surely he can see that the job of running Wales, which was previously being done by three Ministers in the Wales Office, is now being done by 60 politicians. How many extra Assembly Members does the hon. Gentleman want?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Gentleman forgets that, aside from doing the work of three Ministers in the Wales Office, the Assembly has also taken on the various responsibilities that used to be undertaken by the 40 Members of Parliament who now quite rightly observe the delegation of those responsibilities to the Welsh Assembly.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I hesitate to say this to the hon. Gentleman in public, but he is simply not correct. The role that the Assembly plays now is exactly the same as the role that was previously played by the Wales Office. The Wales Office was previously responsible for health, education, transport and so on, and those powers have now transferred to the Welsh Assembly. We went from having three Members of Parliament performing all those functions to having 60 Welsh Assembly Members doing so. I repeat my original question: how many more does the hon. Gentleman want—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Perhaps this is the appropriate moment to remind the House that we are talking about Ministers rather than Members of the Assembly.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I set that hare running myself. If I may, I shall just give the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) one sentence in response before getting back to the subject of the amendments. I want to remind him that Welsh Assembly Members have responsibilities that were not formerly held by Ministers in the Wales Office. I shall be happy to discuss this with him outside the Chamber; perhaps he overestimates the amount that Ministers did before the Welsh Assembly was set up.

There are insufficient Assembly Members, so we are now having artificially to protect the Committee structure. In some ways, that is an unavoidable consequence of the size of the Assembly. Furthermore, if the Deputy Ministers operate sometimes as stand-in Ministers and sometimes as Back Benchers, it will achieve exactly what we have tried to avoid, which is to blur the distinction between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Assembly as an institution in itself. Will the Minister explain what firewalls will exist, both psychologically and morally, for someone who can run with the fox and run with the hounds—someone who is occasionally part of the Welsh Assembly Government and who at other times freelances as a Back Bencher?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Is there not more to it than that? Deputy Ministers will be remunerated. Does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern about the fact that what the Welsh Affairs Committee dubbed the payroll vote will account for 20 per cent. of the Assembly? Does he not find that unacceptable?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

In proportional terms it is not very different from what happens here in Westminster, so I am not as concerned as the hon. Gentleman on that score. However, it is rather ridiculous for Deputy Ministers to be paid to be part of the payroll vote, while at the same being allowed to act as Back Benchers. If all those positions are taken up, we shall have an enormous, overbearing, burgeoning administrative, and rather centralist, Welsh Assembly. How can the Minister justify an arrangement that seems to muddy the waters between Back Benchers and payroll, which, as other Members have said, we would simply not tolerate in the House of Commons?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am conscious of your suggestion that we concentrate on the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will do so, but I want to say a little about Members' comments on whether there will be enough Assembly Members to scrutinise and hold the Assembly Government to account. I also want to say something about the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) about the role of Deputy Minister.

Welsh Members will know what the Presiding Officer, in particular, has said about what will happen after the enactment of part 3 and, possibly, part 4, and about the need for Assembly Members' roles to take account of the additional work that they will be required to do. The Presiding Officer has said that the Assembly should sit for four days a week rather than two. I think that that will cover the extra work load, and will go a long way towards meeting the understandable concerns of many Members about whether 60 Assembly Members will be able to perform the scrutiny role.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will the Minister give way?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

May I first answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about the role of Deputy Ministers? I understand his point, especially in the context of the clear split between Executive and legislature. I would expect the definition in Standing Orders to apply to Deputy Ministers, and given that Deputy Ministers will clearly be part of the Executive, I would not expect them to have the same role as an ordinary Back-Bench Assembly Member; but that is a matter for the Standing Orders.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I apologise to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who is still waiting to intervene.

I fear that if what the Minister says is correct, we shall not have enough Assembly Members to fill the Committees. I assumed that the schizophrenic role of Back Bencher-cum-Deputy Minister had been created because that seemed to be the only way of ensuring that the Committee structure was fully stocked with Assembly Members. Is that not the case?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Not necessarily. As I have said, if the Assembly sat for four days a week rather than two, that would probably take account of the fact that four additional Members would no longer be available to sit on Committees.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

As the Minister says, discussions have turned on the proposal for the Assembly to sit for four days a week rather than two. What discussions has he had about remuneration for Assembly Members and Ministers? Does he expect their salaries to increase in line with their increased work loads, or to remain the same?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Fortunately, that issue is way above my pay grade; it is clearly one for the Senior Salaries Review Body, as is our own remuneration.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

The Minister is talking a lot of sense in proposing to increase the time that the Assembly sits from seven hours a week to four full days, but as Assembly Members have repeatedly said, they already work very hard when they are not there. So there is surely no need to increase their remuneration, because they will not be doing extra work; they will simply be spending more time in the Assembly.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

As I said, this issue is way above my pay grade and I am not going to get involved in any discussion about Assembly Members' salaries.

Let us move on the amendments before us. It is important to the Assembly's effective functioning that there be a limit on the size of the "payroll vote", so clause 51 sets a statutory limit on the size of the Government within the Assembly. The limit prescribed—a combined total of no more than 12 Welsh Ministers and Deputy Welsh Ministers—is consistent with the current arrangement. It seems to work now and I see no reason why it should not work post-May 2007.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Does the Minister really think it right that, on that basis, 40 per cent. of the Labour party should be on the payroll?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The issue is not what percentage of the governing party is in government, but what percentage of the whole Assembly is in government. A considerable percentage of the Labour party is in government in this place, but the issue is the proportion of Parliament that is in government. I shall return to this point in due course.

Currently, there are eight Cabinet Ministers in the Assembly, in addition to the First Minister, and four Deputy Ministers. On comparing that figure with the UK Parliament, it is clear that it is not disproportionate. There are 90 Ministers, including Whips, and 51 Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the House of Commons—21.8 per cent. of its total membership. Our proposed limit for the Assembly, taken with the First Minister and the Counsel General, represents 23.3 per cent. of total Assembly membership if the Counsel General is also an Assembly Member, or 21.7 per cent. if he or she is not. So the proportion is very similar to that in this place.

In the light of that and of the Presiding Officer's suggestion—it is supported by the First Minister—that the Assembly sit post-May 2007 for considerably longer, there should be no problem with scrutiny. However, it is not necessary to limit the First Minister's discretion concerning the balance of Ministers and Deputy Ministers, as the amendment proposes. Should the Assembly have any concerns about the size of the pay bill, it will have powers over Welsh Ministers' and Deputy Welsh Ministers' salaries by virtue of clause 53. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

As I made clear to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) during my initial remarks, our probing amendment is designed to allow the sort of discussion that has indeed taken place, and which has proved very helpful. Although we have strayed into discussing what constitutes the appropriate number of Assembly Members, that issue will require further consideration. However, I take on board the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), about the benefit of the Welsh Assembly's working longer hours. Inevitably, the range of Committee activities will put disproportionate work loads on particular Members, although a rough calculation suggests that they are more likely to be Labour Back Benchers at this stage.

It is important that the Deputy Minister role is clarified in the Standing Order process. The Scottish Parliament has provided the model for much of the discussion on this Bill, and Deputy Ministers there are not able to serve on Committees or ask questions in the Chamber. People understand that Deputy Ministers are part of the Executive—or, in the Wales context, of the Welsh Assembly Government. The debate has made it clear that combining the two roles is unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Standing Orders will deal with the problem and clarify the position of Deputy Ministers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) noted, the office attracts a payment. The duties and responsibilities that go with that should mean that office holders are not able to move from being a member of the Government to being a Back Bencher as and when required.

I shall not press the amendment to a Division, as the House has been able to raise the relevant issues. People are worried about the percentage of members of institutions such as this Parliament or the Welsh Assembly who are on the payroll vote—that is, the number of Ministers who are needed for effective Government. The Opposition believe that we should always strive to ensure that the number is the smallest possible. In the hope that the numbers set out in the Bill do not become the norm but will be assessed in the context of ministerial duties, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60 — Promotion etc. of well-being

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 35, line 27, leave out clause 60.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 64, in page 35, line 28, after 'anything', insert 'within their powers'.

No. 65, in page 38, line 19, leave out clause 70.

No. 66, in clause 70, page 38, line 22, , at end insert 'reasonable'.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I hope that my voice will be more robust today than yesterday, and that the House will bear with me if I start to fade again.

The amendments are designed to examine clauses 60 and 70. Unfortunately, we did not have time to discuss these clauses in Committee, but their selection for debate on Report gives us an opportunity to get inside the minds of the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen and find out exactly what the provisions mean. This debate also allows us to explore the ambit of the subjects that the clauses cover.

I have looked at the explanatory notes to the Bill, and what they say is worth sharing with the House. Clause 60, which covers "Promotion etc. of well-being", is described as follows:

"This clause provides the Welsh Ministers with a power to do anything which they consider is appropriate to achieve the promotion of the economic, social or environmental well-being of Wales. The power may be exercised for the benefit of the whole or any part of Wales or of all or any persons resident or present in Wales. If the Welsh Ministers consider that it would promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of Wales it may also be exercised in relation to or for the benefit of areas outside Wales or persons resident or present in any area outside Wales."

I have to express a little surprise, as I am sure the Minister will understand, because that is so badly drafted that it needs close examination.

The clause begins:

"The Welsh Ministers may do anything",

and I would like the Minister to define "anything", because Ministers may do anything at all that they consider appropriate, without any qualification. They are to be the sole arbiters and have sole judgment. They can do anything whatever—not "anything within their powers"; there is no such qualification—

"which they consider appropriate to achieve any one or more of the following objects—

(a) the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of Wales".

I challenge the Minister to give me some examples of the sort of thing that he thinks Welsh Ministers may do to improve the economic well-being of Wales, and why they need that all-encompassing power. Paragraph (b) mentions the social well-being of Wales. How does the Minister define that? Is it something that would make Assembly Members happy? Is that an appropriate objective? What is social well-being in the context of

"the whole or any part of Wales"?

Next, can the Minister define the term

"the environmental well-being of Wales"?

For example, there is some debate over the nuclear power station at Wylfa B, the jobs there, and the accompanying aluminium plant. Rightly, those subjects have been raised in the House and are of concern to Members. What might Welsh Ministers do in relation to that plant to improve or promote the environmental well-being of Wales? Subsection (1) is very broadly drawn.

Subsection (2) talks about anything that benefits

"the whole or any part of Wales, or . . . all or any persons resident or present in Wales."

I presume that that includes any visiting non-British people, and people coming across the border from England, or from Scotland. Where is the containment of the power? Where does the judgment lie? It lies back with Welsh Ministers, who can decide to do anything that they consider appropriate, without let, bar or hindrance.

Subsection (2) raises many questions in my mind, but if that were not broad enough, subsection (3) would begin to require some serious answers from the Under-Secretary, because it gives Welsh Ministers a

"power to do anything in relation to or for the benefit of any area outside Wales, or all or any persons resident or present anywhere outside Wales".

As I read it, that means that Welsh Ministers can do anything that they consider appropriate, with nobody else sitting in judgment on them, for any area or any country—even Ukraine, whose parliamentary system was prayed in aid in earlier debates, or anywhere else in the whole world. How does that sit with the devolved powers and the powers in schedule 5? This section appears to give Ministers the power to do anything for anybody, anywhere, at any time, and the only people sitting in judgment on that are themselves. Ministers have to consider whether their actions are likely to achieve one or more of the objects in clause 60(1), but that section is also at the discretion of Ministers.

Clause 60(4) starts to describe the powers, but it is so broadly drafted that it provides an open mandate. Ministers can

"enter into arrangements or agreements with any person".

That makes them competent to do anything that they decide is in promotion or improvement of the three areas that we have discussed. Ministers may also

"co-operate with, or facilitate, or co-ordinate the activities of, any person".

Is that provision within the devolved powers in schedule 5, or is the clause drafted more broadly?

Ministers may also

"exercise on behalf of any person any functions of that person".

I hope that they will not be able to exercise any of my functions on my behalf. We need an explanation of who are those persons, what sort of functions will they be exercising—[Interruption.] The Whip says, from a sedentary position, that I am rambling.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I said, "It's the Ram doctrine."

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that I was rambling. My lip-reading skills are obviously not as good as they used to be. I am rambling slightly, because I am perplexed by this clause.

I call clause 60(d) the sleaze subsection, because it says that any Welsh Minister may do anything that they consider appropriate to further the aims in clause 60(1) by providing

"staff, goods, services or accommodation to any person."

Perhaps Welsh Ministers could provide me with a few staff. The Opposition can always do with staff, because support is thin on the ground for Opposition Members. The staff we have are very able, but perhaps I could apply to Welsh Ministers for more staff, or goods and services, or even accommodation when I visit Wales, because it would appear that such provision is within the ambit of clause 60.

Clause 70 is about money. It would give Ministers similar wide powers and I need a decent explanation of it from the Minister. The explanatory notes state:

"This clause gives the First Minister, the Welsh Ministers and the Counsel General the power to give financial assistance (whether by grant, loan or guarantee) to any person engaged in any activity which the Welsh Ministers consider will secure, or help to secure, the attainment of any objective which they aim to achieve in the exercise of their functions. Conditions may be attached to such assistance."

As if it is not sufficient that under clause 60 Ministers may do anything for anybody who is, in their judgment, furthering the aims in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c), they can also give money, by way of a grant, loan or guarantee, to anybody, anywhere, who is engaged in any activity that

"Welsh Ministers consider will secure, or help to secure, the attainment of any objective which they aim to attain in the exercise of any of their functions."

So clause 70 is not even confined to the aims and objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of clause 60.

Would the provisions cover the granting of mortgages to members of staff? Subsection (2) of clause 70 notes that

"conditions . . . may be attached . . . requiring the repayment of the whole or any part".

It thus appears that Welsh Ministers could decide to be the mortgagors of their own houses or the houses of their staff. They could offer grants to businesses coming to Wales—indeed, any assistance whatever. How will the provisions sit with European legislation on offering grants? Under the Bill, anything that a Minister wanted to do in exercise of his or her functions could be accompanied by giving financial assistance to third parties.

Subsection (3) also requires explanation. It states:

"This section applies in relation to the First Minister and the Counsel General as in relation to the Welsh Ministers."

We have already debated the Counsel General and as I understand it that individual need not be an elected Member of the Assembly—anyone at all could be appointed—yet if the section applies to the Counsel General, that person can give

"financial assistance . . . to any person engaged in any activity which the Welsh Ministers consider will secure, or help to secure, the attainment of any objective which they aim to attain in the exercise of any of their functions".

It seems rather strange that the Counsel General, who is not elected, will have power to dispose of taxpayers' money. Why is the Counsel General included in subsection (3)?

I presume that the words

"This section applies in relation to the First Minister . . . as in relation to the Welsh Ministers"

mean that the First Minister will be able to make similar decisions in relation to Welsh Ministers. If a Welsh Minister required a residence to further his aims, would the First Minister be able to provide the funding from taxpayers' money, perhaps on advantageous terms? We do not know what conditions would be attached, under subsection (2), to the repayment of any moneys paid out by the First Minister. Will it be a slush fund that allows anybody to have access to any money at any time to do anything that they want?

I could be wrong and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's interpretation of those two clauses, but as they stand, they would pass to the Assembly Government, to Ministers and to a possibly non-elected Counsel General, broad and sweeping powers with no let, stay or hindrance.

I have tabled two small and reasonable amendments and if, after I have listened to the Minister, I am not satisfied, I may want to vote on them. On page 35, at line 38 of clause 60, I propose the insertion of the words "within their powers", to act as a limit or brake on the provisions. Likewise in clause 70, I propose including the word "reasonable", because a test of reasonableness is needed on the wide powers granted under clauses 60 and 70.

I am sad that we did not have time to explore those matters in Committee, but I am grateful that we have been able to do so on Report. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say about the two clauses.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. I will try to respond to all the points that she made, but first I should give a clear explanation of clauses 60, 70 and 71. Clause 60, on the promotion of well-being, has been included so that, together with clauses 70 and 71, Welsh Ministers will have available to them the wide general powers that UK Ministers have inherently as Ministers of the Crown. That is known as the Ram doctrine, which was established, if my memory serves me right, on 2 November 1945.

Given the nature of the Welsh devolution settlement, we believe that those clauses are the best way to give Welsh Ministers comparable general powers within their responsibilities. That will remove the uncertainty that relates to section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. The provisions will empower the Welsh Assembly Government to pursue a range of actions for which there is no specific statutory power.

The hon. Lady asked for certain examples of how such powers will be exercised. They could include, for example, taking action to promote sustainable development and joint working with other public bodies to improve public services. She asked about the environment, and the powers could include taking action to promote energy efficiency in Wales. Another example is collaborating with other bodies, especially in the public sector, whose functions are not devolved—for example, supporting the police in tackling drug-related issues. Hon. Members have raised such issues on a number of occasions at Welsh questions.

A further example is providing appropriate information to prosecutors—this perhaps relates to the hon. Lady's question about the Counsel General—and regulatory bodies to assist them in considering whether to bringing cases to court. Another example is disseminating information that is of benefit to the public sector or the wider public—for example, joining in a recent campaign on responding to civil emergencies. Those are examples where Ministers do not have the power to intervene to take executive action, but those issues are in line with the responsibilities of UK Ministers. Section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 gives Welsh Ministers certain powers, but these clauses will clarify their roles.

The hon. Lady asked about clause 70 and whether European law would apply to the issuing of grants, state aid and so on.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister has given some examples, but what limits will be placed on those powers?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

First, there is a limit in that every bit of expenditure will be subject to the Audit Committee. The hon. Lady suggested that Ministers could offer mortgages to members of staff. Clearly, they would not be allowed to do that: the Audit Committee would jump most heavily on a Minister if such action was considered.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

rose—

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I shall come to the limits of the word "anything", but I was responding to the question that the hon. Lady asked about European law. Clause 70 is subject to Community law rules on non-discrimination and the free movement of goods and services, so any action by a Welsh Minister will be constrained by Community law in that respect.

The hon. Lady asked about limitations on the power of well-being. Other limits are already set out in the Bill—for example, on human rights in clause 80, on Community law in clause 79 and on international obligations in clause 81.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was expressing the concern that, on the face of it, these powers could exceed the powers that are conferred in relation to matters and fields that are devolved to Assembly Ministers. The Minister has already said that the powers would enable Assembly Ministers to exercise such functions "within the area of their responsibility". However, that phrase does not appear in the Bill. Could the matter not be simply resolved and clarified by adopting the wording that my hon. Friend suggests or that the Minister himself has just used?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I used that phrase because the Minister for Economic Development and Transport might, for example, want to start giving grant aid to a theatre company that wanted to tour in Europe. That is certainly a distinct possibility and it would be good to promote Wales in that way. The Welsh National Opera already does that. That is why I used the phrase "within their responsibilities". However, as in the case of UK Ministers, Assembly Ministers are not necessarily creatures of statute. They occasionally have to take Executive action that is outwith any legislative provision that they have. That is why we need the clauses in relation to well-being. This is not an unusual way of doing things. The Local Government Act 2000 already gives powers to local authorities to take action and expend money for the benefit and well-being of the people they serve.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Does the Minister recognise that the clause could give Assembly Ministers powers to exceed the powers that they already have by virtue of the devolution settlement? My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) expressed that concern, but the Minister has not adequately addressed it.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not feel that I have responded to him. All that we are trying to do with the clauses is provide the same powers that already exist in this place. Members do not complain about the additional powers that UK Ministers can exercise, even though Ministers have not got the right, by statute, to exercise those powers. I referred to the Ram doctrine earlier and although I will not bore the House by going through it, it gives a Minister the ability to exercise power when he feels that it is necessary, as long as he remains accountable to Parliament for those actions. Ministers in the Welsh Assembly will remain fully accountable to the Assembly for all their actions and any money that they expend, in exactly the same way in which UK Ministers are accountable to Parliament now.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will the Minister tell me whether the provisions were included in the original Government of Wales Act 1998 and, if so, whether they were in exactly this form?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The provisions were not in exactly this form, but we are putting them in this form because we are trying to clarify exactly what Ministers can do and what the limits are.

The hon. Lady also asked about a Minister's ability to act outside Wales. I touched on a good example. If the Welsh National Opera was doing a major tour of Europe that could be used to promote Wales and help economic development and tourism, the relevant Minister could subsidise part of that tour as a way of promoting well-being in Wales.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; at least we are having a dialogue on the matter. If Ministers are going to act within the provisions of schedule 5 and the devolved powers, why does it not say that in the Bill? Why is the Minister, at this stage, giving Assembly Ministers the same level and breadth of powers as full Ministers in the UK? Surely this is another example of the devolution settlement being breached and broadened without people appreciating it.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

No, to return to the point that I made earlier, section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 already gives similar powers, but these clauses clarify the situation so that there is no confusion. Following advice, we believe that clarification in this form is necessary.

The hon. Lady was asking about Ministers' ability to exercise powers. These are executive functions to be exercised by Ministers and they will be subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly and, certainly, if any funding is involved, to the scrutiny of the Audit Committee.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way. Will he turn his mind to clause 60(4)(c), which gives Welsh Ministers power to exercise any function

"on behalf of any person"?

Would that give a Welsh Minister the power to exercise a function given to him on an agency basis by a UK Minister, for example?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The well-being power is there to assist the people of Wales. Clause 60(1) sets out the objects to which that power applies. The answer is yes, if it could be shown that an individual outside Wales could perform a duty that was to the benefit and for the well-being of people in Wales, that would not be outwith the clause.

The power to promote well-being is closely modelled on similar powers given to local authorities in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. Local authorities, too, were given that power to reduce uncertainty over their powers to act where there was no specific power relevant to what they wanted to do even though it would benefit people in their area. A similar provision was included in section 30 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, for similar reasons. The power would not alter any existing function of Ministers of the Crown, and there are specific constraints on Welsh Ministers, such as the prohibition on doing anything incompatible with Community law, so those functions do not need to be restated. The power would not override the International Development Act 2002.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister appears to have made two conflicting statements. I think that I am correct in saying that, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), he said that under these clauses it will be possible for a Welsh Minister to exercise the functions of a UK Minister. However, he has just said that this provision does not alter the position of a Minister of the Crown. Perhaps I do not understand, but the two statements appear to be conflicting and I should be grateful for clarification.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

To clarify the point, I am certainly not suggesting that a Minister would be able suddenly to take on the functions of a UK Minister. I am suggesting that, if a UK Minister were in a position to assist the good people of Wales, and there was a requirement for funds to be provided, that would be possible under these clauses.

The amendments seek to remove or constrain the power to promote or improve the well-being of Wales to such an extent that it would become meaningless. It would create uncertainty over the powers of Welsh Ministers to act where there was no specific power relevant to what they wanted to do, even though it would be for the benefit of the people of their area. For the reasons that I have outlined, we believe that the power is necessary, as it has been for local government and the Greater London Authority.

Amendment No. 65 would remove clause 70, which would make no sense. The power already exists for the Assembly in section 85 of the Government of Wales Act, and is being transferred to Welsh Ministers by the Bill. The removal of the clause would restrict the ability of Welsh Ministers to carry out executive functions.

Amendment No. 66 is unnecessary. The power in the clause is identical to one in section 40 of the Government of Wales Act. Although the provision is for the Assembly as a whole, the function in question is an Executive function, which is better carried out by Welsh Ministers. Welsh Ministers are accountable for their actions. If their actions were deemed unreasonable, they would be subject to action by the Assembly or by the Audit Committee, and potentially to judicial review.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will the Minister deal with my question about the Counsel General, please?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I think that I touched on that. The Counsel General would be in a position to expend moneys to ensure that prosecutions took place, and I specifically mentioned that he could take action to assist other authorities in bringing prosecutions. Although he would not be given specific powers under schedule 5 or following the enactment of part 4, the Counsel General would be able to assist other authorities in bringing prosecutions; at present, no statute gives him the power to do that.

We have had a good explanation. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that the powers are not, as she suspects, huge and wide-ranging, unrestricted either by statute or by the Assembly. Far from it. We are making sensible arrangements so that Welsh Ministers can exercise Executive functions to benefit the people of Wales. I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I understand why, from time to time, Ministers—whether in Westminster or in the Assembly—need to exercise Executive powers, but I am not fully satisfied by the explanation that the Minister has given. A lot of points still need to be clarified, and it is unfortunate that we will not be able to do that at this stage. The fact that the clauses are closely modelled on provisions for the Greater London Authority and local authorities has little bearing, because, as we have often heard, the Assembly in Wales is different from the Greater London Authority and local authorities. If there are similarities, one would hope for consistency across government and that Ministers would apply the changes that they intend to make to the electoral system in Wales to the electoral arrangements for the GLA and the Scottish Parliament.

The way in which the Minister has presented his explanation has led to confusion. I am not entirely convinced that under the clauses as drafted it would not be possible for a Minister to take on the functions of a Member of this House or a member of the Government on an agency basis. His assurance that the clauses clarify and limit what Ministers can and cannot do is as nothing, because there is nothing limiting in them. Ministers may well be subject to scrutiny by the Assembly—so they should be—and by the Audit Committee; none the less, the powers given under the two clauses remain unfettered.

I want Welsh Ministers and the Assembly always to do things that assist the people of Wales, but I do not want them to have powers that could be abused or are wider than they should have at this stage. To bring Welsh Ministers into line with UK Ministers is yet another way of devolving by the back door.

Once again, the Government should have been honest about devolution, and perhaps they should have gone the whole hog and held a referendum. However, they have not done so—they are salami-slicing, as the Father of the House has said. The provision is another slice of salami, and it is being made by stealth, rather than in an open fashion. Amendments Nos. 64 and 66 are small amendments, as I mentioned. They do not fundamentally alter Ministers' ability to ensure the well-being of Wales, but they clarify the position and provide the limits that the Under-Secretary believes exist in clauses 60 and 70 as drafted.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I sense that the hon. Lady may wish to divide the House so, for the record, I wish to say that, for once, I was persuaded by the Minister's argument. It is a judgment rather than a principle, but is she not being a little pedantic in pursuing her concerns? The Minister made a cogent argument about the Government's intentions and, in my assessment, it would be useful, rather than harmful, to retain those provisions as drafted.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The amendments do nothing but set fairly broad parameters. By adding the words "within their powers" to clause 60 we would ensure that we stick both to the letter of the law and to the intention behind devolution by limiting Ministers' powers. That may be taken as read, but I would prefer to see such a limitation included in the Bill. Likewise, the insertion in clause 70 of the word "reasonable" would not undermine the spirit of the provision, and would ensure that a test of reasonableness can be applied to the broad powers of financial assistance in the clause.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am being very generous.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As the hon. Lady says, she is being generous and, indeed, modest. I think that she is saying that amendment No. 64 does nothing but clarify clause 60. Taken as a package, however, the amendments do rather more, and would remove the clause.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I merely wish to press amendments Nos. 64 and 66—I do not wish to press the remaining amendments any further. I wish not to wreck the existing provisions, but to provide clarity and certainty, which have not been afforded by the way in which the Bill has been drafted.

May I hasten to comfort the hon. Gentleman? I certainly do not wish to remove clauses 60 and 70. In fact, the original proposal to delete those clauses was designed to enable Committee members to discuss the subject. We were not given the time to hold such a discussion in Committee so, unfortunately, we must do so on Report. The insertion of the words "within their powers" in clause 60 and the addition of the word "reasonable" to clause 70 do not wreck the existing provisions. I have gone a long way towards accepting the Minister's explanation, and the amendments have the best interests of the Welsh people and Wales at heart. However, they provide a safeguard so that Ministers act within their powers. They offer, too, a test of reasonableness on the financial assistance that Ministers may, or may not, give.

I accept the Minister's explanation about the Counsel General, but, again, a test of reasonableness would not go amiss. I am rather sad that the Minister could not accept those small amendments, but I should not be surprised as there has been very little give and take at the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Bill. It is a shame, however, as consensus could easily have been achieved on many of these issues. With a heavy heart, I seek the leave of the House to press amendments Nos. 64 and 66 to a vote, and I urge my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 64, in page 35, line 28, after 'anything', insert 'within their powers'.—[Mrs. Gillan.]

Clause 75 — Business Organisations

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 41, line 4, leave out clause 75.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Business scheme—

'(1) The Welsh Ministers must make a scheme ("the business scheme") setting out how they propose, in the exercise of their functions, to take account of the interests of business.

(2) The business scheme must specify how the Welsh Ministers propose—

(a) to carry out consultation about the exercise of such of their functions as relate to matters affecting the interests of business, and

(b) to consider the impact of the exercise of their functions on the interests of business.

(3) The Welsh Ministers—

(a) must keep the business scheme under review, and

(b) may from time to time remake or revise it.

(4) Before making, remaking or revising the business scheme, the Welsh Ministers must consult such organisations representative of business (including trade unions) and such other organisations as they consider appropriate.

(5) The Welsh Ministers must publish the business scheme when they make it and whenever they remake it; and, if they revise the scheme without remaking it, they must publish either the revisions or the scheme as revised (as they consider appropriate).

(6) If the Welsh Ministers publish a scheme or revisions under subsection (5) they must lay a copy of the scheme or revisions before the Assembly.

(7) The Welsh Ministers must—

(a) within the period of two years beginning with the day on which the business scheme is first made, and

(b) subsequently at intervals of no more than two years,

publish a report of how the proposals set out in the business scheme have been implemented.

(8) The Welsh Ministers must lay before the Assembly a copy of each report published under subsection (7).'.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am pleased to move the amendment and support the new clause because their purpose is to recognise the interests of business throughout Wales. I was especially pleased that, on Second Reading, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) and I spoke for such a provision, the Under-Secretary appeared to respond favourably. Now that it has been drafted accurately—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber or holding conversations in the Chamber please leave quickly and quietly?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am especially pleased that business interests are recognised in the amendments as being those not solely of employers but of employees. They are tied together in new clause 12 so that the voice of the trade unions and employees is equally important to that of employers. When we talk about developing the economic, environmental and social well-being of Wales, as we did in our previous discussion, the business community should have a powerful say.

We tabled the amendments to ensure that the voice of the business sector—employees and employers—was recognised and included in the Bill in the same way as that of the voluntary sector and the public sector. Subsection (4) of new clause 12 refers to

"organisations representative of business (including trade unions) and such other organisations as they consider appropriate."

That is why the amendment and new clause have the support of not only the TUC in Wales but the Wales Trades Union Council.

The amendments were tabled in the spirit of consensus. They have the backing of the people, business organisations and employee organisations in Wales. I hope that not only the House but the Under-Secretary will support them.

The new clause proposes that reports be made at intervals of no more than two years, rather than yearly, as will apply to the voluntary and public sector schemes. In defence of that slight deviation from the other two schemes, I would say that this is precisely what the unions and employers in the business community have asked for. They recognise the need for openness and transparency in reporting back, but they believe that it could be extremely cumbersome if that were to be an annual requirement. They would prefer the period to be up to two years.

I hope that amendment No. 62 and new clause 12 will garner the support of the House today.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

I am happy to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). It was made clear by Ministers at the time of the passing of the Government of Wales Act 1998 that trade unions were meant to be included in the ambit of business organisations, but the amendment makes that absolutely explicit. It should be welcomed for that reason in particular, but also because it clearly sets out the requirement for consultation with social and economic organisations—as I prefer to call them—in a way that is consistent with the schemes that apply to other sectors. This would be widely welcomed by many including the Wales TUC, whose response to the consultation conducted by the Welsh Assembly Government on business consultation made it clear that the TUC wanted a formal basis for the inclusion of trade unions and a structured process to be put in place.

That sentiment has been echoed by the main representatives of the private sector. The CBI has called for a scheme along similar lines to those proposed by the hon. Members for Ogmore and for Newport, East (Jessica Morden). Other business organisations, including the West Wales Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, have made a plea that the general duty to consult business organisations needs a proper structure in terms of its mechanism and its timetable, similar to that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that this will not have to be a Labour rebellion, and that the Minister will finally accept a substantial amendment, because it has garnered considered support on both sides of the House. I shall listen with optimism to the Minister's response in due course. Meanwhile, we are happy to offer our support for the proposals.

Jessica Morden (Labour, Newport East)

In speaking to the amendment and the new clause, I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I also acknowledge that the Welsh Assembly Government has a good, constructive relationship with business and the trade unions in Wales, which is illustrated by the work that is being done through the Business Partnership Council.

Clauses 72 and 73 provide that Welsh Ministers must establish the Business Partnership Council with local government and place a duty on the Welsh Assembly Government to consult and advise local government, and to set up and publish a local government scheme. Clause 74 provides that Welsh Ministers must set up a voluntary sector scheme to explain how they will work and consult with the voluntary sector in Wales. Yet clause 75 calls for Ministers only to carry out consultations with

"such organisations representative of business and such other organisations as they consider appropriate".

The obligation in the Bill to consult business is therefore considerably weaker than the obligations relating to local government and the voluntary sector, and it contains no reference to trade unions representing employees.

It is important to recognise that business and the trade unions play a key role in developing Wales. The new clause acknowledges that and proposes a similar arrangement for business and the unions, to be known as "the business scheme". That would enable the public to see what Welsh Ministers are committed to do for business. Relations with business and trade unions are currently good, but future Administrations would have an obligation to ensure that that continued. The scheme would also ensure that the role of the trade unions was formally acknowledged. Welsh Ministers would have a duty to consult them, and the views of workers in Wales would be heard when decisions were made by the Welsh Assembly Government.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for considering opinions that have the support of the CBI and the TUC in Wales. I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

We support the amendment and, in particular, the new clause. The amendment touches a nerve among many businesses, especially small businesses, which feel that any existing consultation arrangements are not working very well. The new clause sets out the proposed arrangements very clearly, especially the monitoring arrangements.

Clause 75 refers to

"consultation with . . . organisations as they consider appropriate".

I remind Members of the importance of organisations such as the Mid Wales Manufacturing Group and chambers of trade throughout Wales. I hope that the new clause will enable their views to be taken into account.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I hope that the Minister will tell us whether what is proposed in new clause 12 could be dealt with by clauses 60 and 70, which we have just discussed. I should also like to know whether he has any idea of the cost of the business scheme. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has estimated the cost, the time and the number of staff involved. Would any extra staff be needed?

The recent Ministry of Defence withdrawals have affected the deep servicing base at St Athan, which has caused a great deal of concern. I hope that if the Minister accepts new clause 12 or any similar proposal—which I doubt very much; he does not look as though he is in an accepting mood—there will be appropriate consultation with representatives of those working in such areas.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

There would undoubtedly be consultation with various organisations, large and small. The hon. Lady will have noted another slight difference between the new clause and the clauses relating to the public and voluntary sectors: there is no duty to sustain. The independent nature of the business community is reflected in the slightly different wording. While the requirement for consultation is absolutely correct, I do not see the need for a duty to step in and sustain a business. I do not think that any of us would want that.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

That answers one of my questions.

New clause 12(7) states that

"within the period of two years beginning with the day on which the business scheme is first made, and . . . subsequently at intervals of no more than two years",

reports must be presented on

"how the proposals set out in the business scheme have been implemented."

The period of two years seems to be arbitrary, plucked out of the air. Perhaps the Minister will comment.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

As I have said, the TUC and the CBI support the amendment and the new clause, but that proposal follows a request from them. They consider the procedure more manageable and operable than the onerous duty of publishing a report every year. They appreciate the transparency, but do not want a commitment to annual reporting.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful for that intervention. I realise that the proposal is supported by the CBI and the TUC—I merely wanted to know why a period of two years is preferred to, say, three, five or 10 years, as is normal with a business plan. However, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to new clause 12 in particular.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Surprise, surprise, Madam Deputy Speaker—we accept and welcome the amendment and the new clause, and I am sure that everyone welcomes that. The Welsh Assembly Government have worked closely with the business community, including the trade unions, and I expect that they will continue to do so. The new clause, which is a sensible addition to the Bill, is designed to ensure that all parts of the Welsh Assembly Government take the impact on business into account when drawing up policy. I also welcome its clarifying the position of trade unions within the business scheme.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked why such matters could not be dealt with under clauses 60 and 70—

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Do not such powers already exist under clauses 60 and 70? Welsh Ministers could use the powers granted by their wide provisions to take precisely such action, if they wished.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The point is that under the terms of clauses 60 and 70, Ministers would choose whether to take such action. The new clause puts the scheme on a statutory footing—an option that Ministers clearly could not exercise under clauses 60 and 70.

The extra costs involved will be minimal. The point is to ensure that regulations emerging from the Assembly are made with the involvement and agreement of all parts of industry, which is why we welcome the new clause.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He says that the cost will be minimal and I presume, given that he is going to accept the new clause, that he has had a chance to calculate in detail the costs and staffing necessary to implement it. Will he agree to place in the Library of the House those detailed calculations, which would be helpful? Will he also justify to the House the two-year period, so that I can satisfy myself that another period would not be more optimal?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am assured that the costs are minimal as most of this work is already being done by Assembly officials. All sides of business and industry have decided that they want a scheme that can be reviewed every two years. The new clause takes on board their views and I would be amazed if the hon. Lady disagreed with them.

In conclusion, I welcome the new clause and I commend it to the House.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am very pleased to see not only cross-party support for the new clause but support from throughout the Labour Benches. The Minister has given his support not just to the principle behind the new clause, as he did on Second Reading, but to the new clause itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) pointed out, there is already a good working relationship between the Assembly and business. However, the new clause will formalise the Assembly's relationship not only with employers' organisations, but with employees. I am grateful for such support and I thank the Minister for his consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 50, line 7, leave out clauses 92 to 101.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 50, line 17 [Clause 92], at end insert

'; and the Assembly may by resolution request that the Parliament of the United Kingdom legislate on any matter specified in Part 1 of Schedule 5.'.

No. 59, in page 51 [Clause 94], leave out lines 29 to 31.

No. 60, in line 38, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—

'(7) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 30 days beginning immediately after the day on which notice of the Assembly's resolution is received, submit the draft to the Clerk.

(8) It is for the Clerk to submit draft Orders in Council for approval by Her Majesty in Council.'.

No. 61, in page 52, line 7 [Clause 95], leave out '60' and insert '30'.

No. 7, in page 89 [Clause 160], leave out line 23.

New clause 1—Referendum about commencement of Assembly Measure provisions—

'(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council cause a referendum to be held throughout Wales about whether the Assembly Measure provisions should come into force.

(2) If the majority of voters in a referendum held by virtue of subsection (1) vote in favour of the Assembly Measure provisions coming into force, the Assembly Measure provisions are to come into force in accordance with section 92.

(3) But if they do not, that does not prevent the making of a subsequent Order in Council under subsection (1).

(4) No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under subsection (1) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament and the Assembly.

(5) But subsection (4) is not satisfied unless the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of Assembly seats.

(6) A draft of a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (1) may not be laid before either House of Parliament, or the Assembly, until the Secretary of State has undertaken such consultation as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(7) For further provision about referendums held by virtue of subsection (1) see Schedule 6.

(8) In this Act, "the Assembly Measure provisions" means sections 92 to 101.'.

New clause 3—Scrutiny of proposed Orders in Council by Joint Scrutiny Committee—

'(1) There shall be a Joint Scrutiny Committee (in this section, "the Committee") that shall scrutinise every Order in Council made pursuant to section 94 of this Act and report on its expediency to the House of Commons and to the National Assembly for Wales.

(2) The Committee shall consist of ten Members of the House of Commons and ten Members of the National Assembly of Wales.

(3) The Committee may choose its own Chairman and determine its own procedure.'.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Clauses 92 to 101 make up part 3 of the Bill, which deals with Assembly measures. We debated these provisions in detail and at length in Committee, but I was left entirely unpersuaded by the Government's arguments about the proposals' necessity or desirability.

The House must bear it in mind that these clauses would mean that primary legislation would cease to be the responsibility of this House—or any Assembly or Parliament—and be replaced by a system of government through Order in Council. It would be difficult to imagine a more fundamental shift from the normal convention and practice in our country's constitution, although the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill tries to extend the same principles to the entirety of the governance of this country, including England.

It became clear in the course of our Committee debates that the Government simply did not grasp the extent of the change that these proposals would introduce. We were told that the measures were perfectly reasonable, and that Orders in Council are commonly used. I accept the latter point, but they are not used for enacting measures that are normally the preserve of primary legislation. However, that is precisely the system that we will be introducing if we allow these clauses to go through.

Parliament gives power to the Executive. The Government have argued that they want to devolve power so that it is brought closer to the people, but where will that power be exercised? That is the important question, as clauses 92 to 101 make it glaringly apparent that the exercise of the power supposedly to be transferred to the Assembly will remain entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

For example, clause 94(7) allows the Secretary of State the right to refuse to enact a draft order proposed by the Assembly. Parliament will have an opportunity to vote on such a draft order, but will be able to see it only in draft form. We will not be able to see the order in its final form.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

indicated dissent.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps I have chosen my words badly, but in Committee we established that Parliament will be presented with a draft Order in Council and asked to decide whether it should go ahead. However, it will not be able to determine whether the order in its final form, as put together by the Welsh Assembly, should be approved. That is because, at that stage, the Secretary of State is the only person with the power to intervene and prevent a measure from being enacted. If I have got any of that wrong, I shall be pleased to give way to the Minister so that he can correct me.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman with how the system will work. The Welsh Assembly will propose an Order in Council, which will then be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny, when it can be amended. After that, the Assembly will consider any changes and introduce a draft Order in Council. That draft order will then be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the normal affirmative procedure, both here and in the House of Lords, will apply. It is not the measures that will come before Parliament in any form, but the policy statement justifying why the Order in Council is required. There will be a substantial amount of information attached to that, and it will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the hon. Gentleman.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It certainly clarifies the matter up to a point, and it sounds even worse than I originally thought. In Committee I understood that although the House would vote on the draft Order in Council, there would be an opportunity for the House to scrutinise the actual draft measure. The Minister shakes his head and says that that is not the case, but I have to express some surprise. That is not at all what I remember.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is being removed from Parliament are precisely the rights that were not afforded to it by dictatorial monarchs down the ages? This activity is at the heart of what Parliament does, and either the Welsh Assembly should do it or this place should. It is unacceptable for no one to do it.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree with my right hon. Friend; that is the matter that was of such concern to us in Committee. We tabled amendments to try to beef up the procedures, but they were all rejected. That is why I shall invite the House to take out the entirety of this part of the Bill. In my view, it has no place in the architecture of the legislation—and indeed, it is completely unnecessary.

If the Government were honest and true to their principles they would have no hesitation in putting the idea of Acts of the Assembly to a referendum, getting the necessary powers and handing those powers to the Welsh Assembly. There are arguments both in favour of and against further devolution, but at least that would have some intellectual honesty about it, whereas what is now proposed is a hybrid system that will grossly undermine this House's ability to scrutinise legislation, but will not give the Welsh Assembly any measure of sovereign control over its own legislation.

The matters in schedule 5, part 1—all important areas of legislation for the people of Wales—will be determined by a sort of minuet danced between the Secretary of State and the Assembly, in which the Secretary of State ultimately exercises all the control. A measure more calculated to undermine the principles of parliamentary democracy would be difficult to find. However, having seen the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, and what the Government seek to impose on the country more generally in that measure, we should not be surprised by what they are doing to the people of Wales, who are being treated as guinea pigs for their proposals elsewhere.

The longer we debated this issue in Committee, the less persuaded I was that these measures were necessary. If the Government had the courage to bring devolution a further notch forward, they would accept the need for a referendum and Assembly Acts. Moreover, there are so many downsides to the proposals, which risk producing an environment in which the ability to scrutinise legislation and determine it properly will be seriously undermined.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

Does the shadow Attorney-General see any contradiction between his proposal to delete part 1 of schedule 5 and the position taken by the leader of his party in the Assembly, who has voted, and called, for extending schedule 5 to include new areas such as energy?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Not at all; this highlights the nub of the issue. It is possible to have a perfectly reasoned debate about whether the Welsh Assembly should be granted more powers. I am aware that within Wales, and outside it, there will be people with different opinions on that subject. There are perfectly valid arguments that Wales should follow the pattern of Scotland and have primary legislative powers, and that the Welsh Assembly should acquire sovereign authority over areas of legislative competence, if that is what is desired. That, in a sense, is what the Government propose in part 4.

I shall make something clear again, both to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and to the Minister—and, indeed, to anybody else. We have said all along that if that is what the Government seek to do, it is right that they should put it to the people of Wales, and if the people of Wales want it, they should have it. That is why we shall certainly not oppose the measures in part 4.

My colleagues in the Welsh Assembly have views on that subject, and are perfectly entitled to argue that greater powers should be devolved to Wales. That is what an evolving democracy is about—just as people are also entitled to argue that that should not happen. My objection is not to the principle that there might be further devolution to Wales, but to the hybrid system that the Government seek to set up to avoid having to ask the Welsh people a referendum question, because they know that would be embarrassing within their own party.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does my hon. Friend accept the fact that I believe in further devolution, and that, as we have taken this step, I would like the Welsh people to make many more of their own decisions? There are arguments about whether we should have devolution at all, but now that it has been introduced, it ought to be effective. What is so dangerous is the fact that we are evolving a system in which the prime player is neither the Welsh people through their Assembly, nor the United Kingdom people though the United Kingdom Parliament, but the Government through executive action. That is intolerable and undemocratic.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree entirely. This is a creeping process, which has probably been going on for some time. This Parliament has been successively surrendering powers of legislative competence through the greater use of statutory instruments and Orders in Council for a long time. In 1966 there were, I think, 35 statutory instruments, whereas there are now some 3,000 to 4,000 a year. That is already a measure of the loss of competence—but at least in key areas of primary legislation, historically we have kept the competence. That is what we are surrendering now.

As I have said, if I were being asked to surrender that competence to a Welsh Assembly taking over our powers, I might argue against that because of my attitude to devolution, but I could not fault it as a procedure. I also have to acknowledge that in the Scottish context, that has worked quite well. However, I am not prepared to surrender the power of this House to scrutinise and enact legislation to a system that very considerably increases the power of the Executive.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am trying to understand the Conservatives' position on this matter, because that would help us to see what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do with his amendments. Can he clarify the definitive Conservative party policy? As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) has pointed out, there seems some confusion between what the leader of the Conservatives in Wales was saying and what the hon. Gentleman is saying now.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am afraid that the only confusion is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The Conservative party's position is extremely straightforward: any increased devolved powers for the Welsh Assembly should come through part 4. If the people of Wales want those devolved powers, they can have them by voting in a referendum under part 4. If they chose to have them in that way, our party's task would be to facilitate that process and make it work effectively.

The Conservative party—the official Opposition—will not at any stage subscribe to a system of governance that removes legislative competence from everybody and hands it to the Executive. I hope that that is now clear to the hon. Gentleman, and that he understands exactly where we stand.

Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would make it easier for the Government to impose regional government in the west midlands without offering a referendum?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It is true that the people of Wales will have no referendum on the part 3 proposals. My hon. Friend will have noticed that one of our amendments would require a referendum to be held. The people of Wales should be consulted on whether they wish to be governed by Order in Council, but the Government have never consulted the people of Wales on part 3. It was dreamt up by bureaucrats and will be imposed on the people of Wales. It suits the Government because it resolves the internal problems in the Labour party, with some members set against further devolution and some wanting much more.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

I wish to return to the internal problems in the Conservative party. If the Order in Council procedure is such anathema to the Conservative party, why, on 25 January in the Assembly Committee considering the Bill, did the leader of the Welsh Conservative party ask for more subject areas to be added to schedule 5?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Schedule 5 defines the powers that could be given to the Welsh Assembly under part 3 or part 4. I do not see a problem with those of my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly who say that they would like more devolved powers for Wales. The question is how those powers should be devolved. It seems to me to be a fairly simple matter.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

If I sat in the Welsh Assembly, I would want the schedule to include several powers that it does not include at present, but I would expect that—in order to press for part 4 to be enacted—the people of Wales could make that judgment. The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), with whom I often agree, misses the point. If one wants greater devolved powers, this is the only way to achieve that under the format presented by the Government.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) about whether such powers could be used more extensively in England, the answer must be yes. Indeed, the whole constitutional trend since Labour came into power in 1997 is to minimise the use of Parliament for governmental business. The Government go to considerable lengths to avoid having legislation scrutinised in this place. When it is scrutinised in this place, the guillotining of business means that we cannot give it adequate scrutiny. One of the real ironies—I regard it as a disgrace—is that the Government, having preventing us from scrutinising legislation properly, claim that as Parliament cannot do the job they might as well give it to someone else. That is a pattern of behaviour from this Government.

The House should not subscribe to part 3, unless the Government choose to have a referendum on it and allow the Welsh people to understand what it is all about. That is what we try to achieve in new clause 1.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

If the Government were to be minded to offer such a referendum, would it not be just as easy for them to offer one on part 4 at this stage and forget part 3?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It would be and, from a constitutional point of view, part 4 would be a much better option than part 3. If someone offered me a choice between part 3 and part 4, I would choose part 4. Although it is a major constitutional change, part 4 at least has some internal coherence, which part 3 lacks. I accept that it is possible that the Welsh people, if they were to be consulted, might decide that they wished to be governed by Order in Council under the part 3 procedure. If that choice were put to them, I would enjoy campaigning in Wales and explaining to people what part 3 is all about. If the Government think that part 3 is such an attractive proposal, they should accept new clause 1, and I hope to hear the Minister say so before the end of the debate. If new clause 1 is accepted, we will see the same spirit of concord that we saw when the Government accepted an amendment tabled by Labour Back Benchers a few moments ago.

New clause 3 is a fall-back position. Inadequate as part 3 is, new clause 3 would provide a system for a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and the Assembly to scrutinise draft orders. That would go some way to remedying the democratic deficit of part 3. Amendment No. 7 is consequential to amendment No. 4.

Our view is straightforward. Further devolution can work only if it is honest in empowering the legislature rather than favouring the Executive. Part 3 is a bureaucrat's charter. It is also a charter that suits Government very well, and hundreds of years of acquired rights, which are enshrined in legislatures, are being systematically eroded by the drafting of part 3. The House should have nothing to do with it. It is unworthy of the Government to propose it. Despite having sat through Committee and debated the Bill extensively during its passage, I did not understand a point that the Minister made today. If, however, it is true that Parliament will have only the vaguest notion of the detail of what the Assembly will enact, that is an even more compelling reason why part 3 should be rejected. Part 3 is the creature of the Executive and I hope that the House will send out a signal that some of us, at least, will not accept that principle.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

What we have just heard is a gross misrepresentation of the system that is proposed and betrays a profound lack of understanding of the legislative system that has been in operation, certainly since I came to this place in 2001. That is perhaps not surprising from the Conservatives, because they have limited experience of legislation affecting Wales during that period. In reality, that legislation has been subject to unprecedented scrutiny, because of the emergence of pre-legislative scrutiny. I suggested as much to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) during earlier proceedings on the Bill, but he does not seem to have taken it on board.

Pre-legislative scrutiny was instituted under the Conservative Government before 1997 and has developed substantially since then, especially since 2001 in respect of Wales. Proposals from the Assembly have been scrutinised by Committees of the House, primarily the Welsh Affairs Committee. They have been almost scrutinised to death. In at least two cases, the Public Audit (Wales) Bill and the Transport (Wales) Bill, the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Welsh Affairs Committee—often working with the Assembly—meant that no substantial amendments were needed when the measures came before the House. Bills have avoided taking up unnecessary Chamber time due to the extent of the pre-legislative scrutiny. No amendments were tabled in the House and Bills went through without difficulty.

As pre-legislative scrutiny will apply to the process outlined in the Bill, I cannot for the life of me understand why it is regarded as so heinous. The Conservatives often seem to believe in a Whig concept of constitutional history whereby legislative processes in the Chamber reached a state of grace in 1997, such that no constitutional improvement could be possible after that date and that any proposal made since then has been a usurpation of the powers of the general populace—powers that the Government are determined to take from them.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I certainly do not suggest that the problems date only from 1997—some of them predate 1997. I want to pick the hon. Gentleman up on one point. He talks about pre-legislative scrutiny, but of what—the Order in Council or the draft measure? That was the point I made to the Minister, who in Committee made a considerable error that he subsequently had to correct by writing to people. He said that

"the preliminary draft measure, along with its explanatory memorandum, will be attached. It will therefore, going through its pre-legislative scrutiny, be amendable".—[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 121.]

He had to withdraw those comments, but I did not understand from them that we would not see the preliminary draft measure; yet I understand from what he said earlier today that we shall not see it, so how can we even consider, in pre-legislative scrutiny terms, what the measure will be?

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the preliminary draft measure will be given pre-legislative scrutiny, which will be amendable. There is no suggestion that Members will not have the opportunity to consider proposals. They will be considered by the House and by Assembly Members, probably in a joint legislative Committee of the Assembly and Parliament.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Is not the hon. Gentleman falling into the trap of thinking that each Order in Council is a one-off? In fact, each Order in Council will devolve primary competence, for a particular matter in a particular field, to the Assembly. The Assembly can then, if it wants, revisit that devolved competence and create further Assembly Measures, which will never be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the House.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

That is devolution.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Precisely, but the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) seems to think that pre-legislative scrutiny will apply to every proposed Assembly Measure, when clearly it will not.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Since the Government of Wales Act 1998, devolution of further powers has occurred regularly, as anyone familiar with the development of devolution must be aware, and we have not needed a referendum at every stage of that process. Indeed, until our debates on the Bill, I had never heard a suggestion that a referendum was needed every time a power was transferred to the Assembly. The process has been continuous, but the Conservatives do not seem to recognise the dynamic of devolution and the joint relationship that has developed between the Assembly and Parliament.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

There is a slight difference between transferring further functions to the Assembly to operate under the existing devolution settlement and creating a new devolution settlement subject to the powers in part 3. The hon. Gentleman has a legal background and I am sure that if he gave even a moment's thought to the difference between the procedures in part 3 and the existing situation, he would acknowledge that point.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Of course there will be a change in the process, but as I pointed out earlier the reason for it is that the existing process leads to the House considering legislation unnecessarily, because it has already been scrutinised. The Conservatives are grasping at straws when they suggest that we are engaged in some perverted constitutional exercise that undermines fundamental liberties. The Government have a proud record on developing pre-legislative scrutiny, recognising the existence of the Assembly and facilitating working relationships between it and the Westminster Parliament that have led to an improvement in the scrutiny of legislation affecting Wales. Far from undermining those relationships, the measure will improve them.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

It would be foolish to ignore the background to this part of the Bill. Clearly, some Government Members want no further devolution. For them, even the description of continuing devolution given by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) would be anathema. It is pleasing that the Father of the House is not in the Chamber, for he would have been very unhappy had he heard that.

Other Labour Members want more devolution. Both views are perfectly reasonable. Indeed, one might find a range of views about devolution among Opposition Members—whether there is enough or whether it should go further. What is unacceptable is to try to paper over those cracks in a way that strikes at the very heart of the activity of Parliament. That brings me to a direct argument with the hon. Member for Wrexham, but I hope that he will acquit me of anything other than real concern for parliamentary democracy.

I admit that I would have liked a different way of sharing power in the United Kingdom from that decided on in 1997 and thereafter. However, having undertaken it as we have, it is unacceptable that the people of Wales should have a form of devolution significantly different from that provided for the people of Scotland. Were there an opportunity for a referendum, I hope that the people of Wales would vote for greater devolution, much along the lines of that accorded to people in Scotland.

What seems unacceptable is to say that, because the majority party does not believe that it could achieve a common view, it will offer the people of Wales what is in part 3 instead of what is essentially in part 4, but that, of course, they must not have a vote on it, because if they did, they might recognise just how silly it is—silly in the sense that this is a means whereby the future of the people of Wales is removed from the parliamentary hands in which it is now and from any referendum and placed in the hands of bureaucrats and Ministers.

The problem for the Government is that all the parallels to this are unflattering; they happen in circumstances where dictatorial Governments, very often monarchical in kind, wanted to have a parliamentary structure that discussed things, argued things, scrutinised things, but did not actually decide things. The trouble for any of us who take an interest in 19th century history is that the Minister's explanation sounds closer to those of Louis Napoleon—[Interruption.] It is all right for the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), but I hoped that he would have read up about Louis Napoleon, because he would have found out just how parallel the proposal is.

As my Welsh nationalist friends know, I am in no way unsupportive of many of the positions that they take, but I am disappointed that both they and the Liberals have fallen for the significantly dangerous sleight of hand that the Conservative party is trying to remove under the amendment. I am not trying to remove it to reduce the Welsh Assembly's powers. I want to remove it so that we can move on to offer to the Welsh Assembly greater powers through the referendum, which would do so publicly and clearly, and I would be happy to debate with the Father of the House the advantages of going further, while he would no doubt explain the advantage of going backwards, which is, of course, the usual direction of his party.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Although the right hon. Gentleman may indeed be Suffolk, Coastal's first Welsh nationalist, can he nevertheless not grasp the scepticism that some of us feel about his claimed embracement of the devolution project, given that other Conservative Members have made it clear in the debate that they do not support the devolution of further powers? In addition, there is an absolute mess of policy confusion between what Nick Bourne says for the Conservatives in Cardiff and what right hon. and hon. Members say regarding Conservative policy in Westminster.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Subtlety never was a great Liberal virtue, but let me try to explain what is a very clear subtlety in this matter. It should not matter to the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members will have different views on devolution; what should matter to him is whether the people of Wales will be given an opportunity to decide what they think about devolution. He is a Liberal—and this is the point of my speech with which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd can agree—and, in reality, Liberals are always illiberal. When people ask them, "Are you going to stand up for democracy, choice and people deciding?" "Oh, no," they say, "much better to let the Government do it, because we might then get a bit, and we might not have to face the electorate to argue the case." It is very interesting: scratch a Liberal and we always find a fascist. That is absolutely true, universally.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

It is no good saying that I have used an unsuitable word. I mean it in the precise terms of people who believe that the state is right and that the state system should overcome the realities of democracy. The trouble is that the provision proposes the use of Orders in Council—the very phrase is one of those that means something horrific. It means that the Government and Ministers use a technique that specifically makes democratic control as febrile and slim as is humanly possible in a House that calls itself a Parliament. It is a carefully contrived method of making it almost impossible for anyone to disagree. If that is not the mechanism of Napoleon III and his successors, I really do ask what would be.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Lembit III.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Lembit I. Aside from the somewhat distasteful language that the right hon. Gentleman has uncharacteristically used in his contribution, may I remind him which Government most promoted the use of Orders in Council in the House? Was it not the Conservatives in their 18 years in government who set the precedent for using Orders in Council to govern this country much more than any Government beforehand? Therefore, is he willing to condemn the very Government of whom he was a part?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

If that were true—

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

It is true.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

The hon. Gentleman should listen to the end of my sentence. If that were true, it is also true that a further and extraordinary extension of that has been done by the Government and is being proposed now. If I were to decide to discuss all the Orders in Council in the past with the hon. Gentleman, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would soon stop me, so I will concentrate on the Orders in Council as dealt with in the amendment. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it does not help in a logical argument to say, "Because you did it, he can do it." I am arguing something quite different.

Let us not become caught up in what the Liberals say is distasteful. If what I said was in any way distasteful, of course I withdraw any lack of taste in the sentence, but I think that the hon. Gentleman knows precisely what I mean. Liberals are illiberal when it comes to the promotion of their own views. They are thoroughly illiberal, and they would prefer the Government to impose such things than to give the public the chance to choose them. That is the fundamental issue. We are talking about something much more important than merely the way in which Orders in Council will be discussed.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that both the Labour party and the Conservative party in government have taken various steps to support a decentralisation of powers, either through the Wales Office or the Welsh Assembly, about which I am less enthusiastic, whereas the Liberal party, which has always claimed to be the party of devolution, had a perfect opportunity to introduce home rule when it was last in government and chose not to do so?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

The great point that my hon. Friend makes is clear: Liberals in power prefer to keep hold of that power and use it in the way that they want, rather than sharing it. It is only when they are out of power that they are keen on the sharing bit. It is a serious issue to find the Liberal party on the side of the proposal, but I would expect that from it. I am much more unhappy about the Welsh nationalists, because the word "principle" means something to Welsh nationalists, and it therefore distinguishes them from my experience of the Liberal party. I always remember the person on the doorstep who told me—[Hon. Members: "Oh, come on."] Labour Members will like this if they wait a moment—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. What is more important in this matter is whether the occupant of the Chair likes it, and we are now getting a little wide of the mark. The right hon. Gentleman ought to draw himself back to the amendment.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I will certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I had hoped to give you a moment of amusement in what might otherwise be a long debate on detail.

If we now take the principle, being obnoxious, that the Government should arrogate to themselves powers that should be properly in the hands of a democratic Assembly, we should ask ourselves which democratic Assembly should have those powers. It seems to me that that is what the amendment deals with. It would mean that if there were to be devolution, it would have to take place in two ways: Parliament would have to decide to offer it and the people of Wales, in this case, would have to decide through a referendum that they wanted it. The Government wish to avoid both those principles. They do not want Parliament properly to scrutinise each item of devolution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said earlier, such items are part of a group, rather than a series of single items. The Government do not want this Parliament to make those decisions, nor do they want them to be offered to the people of Wales.

My hon. Friend, with typical generosity, suggested that it would be valuable to put part 3 to a referendum. If the Government offered to do that, I understand that we would be prepared to withdraw amendment No. 4, because it would then be possible for the people of Wales to say what they thought of this political stitch-up. It would also be possible for us to flush out the varying attitudes to this proposal in the governing party. However, when the referendum was proposed, there was, if I may say so delicately—I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who asserted that he was not keen on my language, does not mind the word that I am about to use—a certain amount of tittering. We imagined going round Wales saying, "Would you like the Government to have a power of Orders in Council in order to be able to present things that you ought to be able to decide on?" I can imagine the enthusiasm with which people would rush out to vote on such a proposal. The tittering came from not only this side of the House. One or two Labour Members—and there are only one or two in the Chamber—managed, rather ineffectively, to cover up their tittering.

The question is more serious than was supposed. The people of Wales are not being offered a referendum on part 3 because the Government know, first, that they would be held up to ridicule and, secondly, that the people of Wales would say no. They would say no on one of two grounds: either because they wanted proper devolution, which is why I would say no, or because they thought that they did not want any more devolution, which is what some of my colleagues might think. They would certainly accept that this part of the Bill is a palpable ruse. It is a fake and a fraud, and not a proper thing to bring in front of the House. That is why the Opposition propose its removal. We are democrats and we want Parliament, whether it is the UK Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, or, indeed, the Scottish Parliament, to make decisions democratically.

My difficulty is that the Minister has been put in an impossible position because he does not really believe what he is saying. I know that because he is a very good arguer on most things. He is clear, concise, comprehensible and comprehensive. On this matter, he has been opaque, long-winded, imprecise and, if I may say so, incomprehensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is a man whose mind is sharp and who seizes the point rapidly. The fact that he got to this point in the debate before he understood what the Government were about is a comment not on his intelligence, but on the Government's imprecision and, I think, their lack of knowledge of their own proposals.

I do not think that you were in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, interestingly, there was a point at which Members on the Government Front Bench and the Benches behind were busy trying to discuss what the Government's policy actually was. It was clear that the hon. Member for Wrexham put things in a way that did not quite fit what the Minister thought he had been saying. It certainly did not quite fit what we thought the Minister had been saying. If one has been around as long as I have, one begins to get suspicious when a Minister is imprecise, unclear and unable to communicate a key part of a Bill—the part that amendment No. 4 would remove. One begins to wonder whether there is something up and whether things are not quite as they seem—of course, they are not at all as they seem.

Right the way through the debate, the House has been told that we are creating a system that will enable the Welsh Assembly to get more legislation through more rapidly and more sensibly, in terms that are denied it because of the heavy burden on this House. That would sound all right if it were not for the fact that the important necessary phrase, "and therefore the Government have decided to take things into their own hands," is missing from that statement. The Government have decided that they will invent a system that ensures that control is no longer in the hands of this democratic Parliament. However, it will be put not into the hands of the democratic Assembly, but, in fact, into the Government's hands. That must be wrong for everyone, but because the matter does not have to be put to a referendum, the cracks between the various and interestingly different views of members of the Labour party can be papered over. That is why I come back to wooing the Welsh nationalists.

The Welsh nationalists know perfectly well what the Government are about. When it comes to an election, they will say that the provisions are about avoiding the fundamental question of whether the Assembly is going to be a Parliament or not. If the Welsh nationalists were true to their principles, they would say, "Look here, we are not going to provide the cover for this. We are not going to stand in front of the Government and pretend that this is another step on the way to devolution. Instead, we are going to stand up and tell the Government to give us part 4. We will fight them on the doorsteps and make sure that we win a referendum. Give us part 4 and do not palm us off with part 3." That is the heart of the opposition that is summed up in amendment No. 4.

I, who have gone into the Lobbies with my Welsh nationalist friends, sometimes against a Whip, ask them to think seriously about what their position will do to them in the Principality. It will enable people to say very simply, "These are people who are more interested in supporting a bureaucratic fudge than standing for the central issue of democratic control over the future of the people of Wales." In the past, there were better ways of doing things than the way that we ended up with, but, having got where we have, let us not allow ourselves to be led down the dangerous path that the Government have proposed.

If we do not agree to the amendment, we will set a precedent that could be used much more widely. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have not sat through every hour of the debate on the Bill—although it may have seemed like it from time to time—but it is right that the important subject of Welsh Government matters and the Principality should have occupied so much of our time. Those of us who live in the county of Suffolk—one of the six counties that, for the purpose of administrative regions, the Government call the east of England—note that we have not been given the equivalent time to discuss forced regionalisation, which we do not want and which involves the transfer of powers relating to our police, ambulances and hospitals to a central body in a region. We are concerned that the pattern evident here, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) rightly raised, will enable the Government to say, "If this is how we do it for Wales, why don't we do it for the non-existent region of the east of England? There is a lot of business in Parliament. Why don't we bypass the people of that region, just as we have bypassed the people of Wales?".

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has to accept that I speak on his side on this occasion not only because I think that we should stand up for the ability of a different part of the United Kingdom to govern itself in a more effective and direct way than the bureaucratic answer being presented by the Minister, but because those of us who are being threatened by another bureaucratic nightmare called regionalisation see in this clause a means of removing from us the right to make decisions through local government that we have at the moment.

As my hon. Friend says, we tabled the amendment because we need to stand against something that is at the heart of this Government's activity—constantly emasculating the House of Commons, removing from us our powers of control and not allowing us to devolve those powers as we think fit subject to a referendum of the people of that area. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you feel that I am moving away from the amendment, I remind you that it would remove from the Bill the very trick that could be used to get round the problem that this Government cannot win a referendum in England either. Why on earth are they not offering a referendum to the people of Wales? I will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—it is because they know very well that they would lose it, and this Government have referendums only if they think that they can win them.

We want to get rid of part 3 altogether, but I would hope that the Government, in answering, would offer something in its place. I am sure that the real answer is for us to withdraw our amendment and allow the Government to move forward to a referendum on either part 3 or part 4. I suggest that it should be on part 4, and I hope in that case that I would find myself campaigning in the more pleasant company of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) rather than that of the Father of the House.

At least we would be arguing about reality, democracy, clarity, transparency and consistency. At this moment, we are offered something that is opaque, inconsistent, unclear and fundamentally dishonest. It is for that reason that I am pleased that this party has insisted that we stand up for democracy and against the growing bureaucratisation of our society, led by a Government who are frightened of Parliament, which is best illustrated by the fact that they have a Prime Minister with the worst record of coming here of any Prime Minister since we first started.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

I would like to speak to amendments Nos. 59 to 61. It seems a long time since we started debating this group of amendments and I shall endeavour to be brief.

The amendments would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to derail the Welsh Assembly's wishes. They would remove the power to refuse to lay a draft order before the House and prevent unnecessary delay by requiring the Secretary of State to act within 30 days, rather than the 60 days currently stated in the Bill. Given that any Assembly Measures or draft orders have already been debated and agreed in the Assembly, there appears to be no need for further delay at this end. Liberal Democrats believe that the whole point of devolution is to let the people of Wales have their views represented, and it would completely undermine that principle if the democratic will of the Assembly were allowed to be delayed or completely stymied by the will of one individual in the person of the Secretary of State for Wales.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

My hon. Friend will, like me, expect the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) to vote for that change because he has made it very clear that he would support any opportunity to increase democratic accountability in the system. Obviously, then, he would agree with my hon. Friend's argument that the will of the Assembly is clearly a more democratic guide to the interests of Wales than one appointed Secretary of State for Wales.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

Not surprisingly, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I would be grateful if, in the course of her remarks, the hon. Lady spoke to amendment No. 59 in her name and those of her hon. Friends. I am sympathetic to the idea of preventing the Secretary of State from derailing the process, but the impact of that amendment, if I understand it correctly, appears to be to remove the need for there to be a resolution of this House at all.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Liberal Democrats believe in a full Welsh Parliament, so ideally we would like the democratic will of the Welsh people to be expressed in such a Parliament. However, the amendments are about ensuring that, in the orders that come through this Parliament, the will of the Assembly cannot be derailed.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the hon. Lady give way again?

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

I would rather not. This debate has gone on for a long time and it is important that we move on, or many issues will not be covered.

Unfortunately, we cannot support the Tory amendments in this group. Although we do not agree with all of the Bill, as we have made clear a number of times during the debates, we believe in devolution and would like the Assembly to have further powers. The Conservatives' amendments would slow up the process and cause unnecessary delays that would undermine the view of the Assembly; therefore we cannot support them.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

The hon. Lady talks in terms of delay, but could not delay be avoided altogether if we deleted part 3 and proceeded immediately to part 4?

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

I point out that the hon. Gentleman's own party does not necessarily agree with that. We have made our view clear throughout.

Depending on the Minister's response, we may want to press amendment No. 60 to a vote.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I rise to support wholeheartedly the amendment that stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Part 3 goes to the heart of what I consider to be a most reprehensible and devious piece of legislation proposed by this Government.

The Government seek to portray part 3 as an innocuous measure aimed at modestly increasing or, if you like, streamlining the powers of the Assembly. Were that the case I have no doubt that neither I nor my right hon. and hon. Friends would have any problems with it and we would not be taking up the time of the House. The Assembly is now a fact of life in Wales. It may not yet be working entirely satisfactorily but it is part of the fabric of government in Wales and we all have a duty to make it work as best it can. However, part 3 is not a modest measure. It is a measure aimed at conferring primary legislative competence on the Assembly on a piecemeal basis. It is therefore, by any measure, a major constitutional innovation which, if enacted, will transfer a significant degree of legislative competence from this place to another legislative body.

The fact that such transfer is, as I say, on a piecemeal basis through Orders in Council does not render it any less significant. The fact is that, over time, more and more primary powers will be ceded by Parliament to the Assembly, subject of course always to the executive filtration process of the Secretary of State, which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, I find particularly repugnant.

It is generally agreed that the convention that has developed in this country is that if primary powers are ceded by Parliament to another body, a referendum should first take place in which the will of the people is consulted. That is what happened in Wales in 1997; that is what should happen now. The Government know that. Part 4 provides that such a referendum must take place before Assembly Acts may be passed, but Assembly Measures will be no less primary legislation, so the question is: why will the Government not give the people of Wales the simple right to vote on the proposals in a referendum? The answer is simple: they know that they would lose.

The Secretary of State has already acknowledged that there is no consensus in Wales for more primary powers for the Assembly. On 15 June last year, he said:

"we will call a referendum only if there is a consensus for one. There is no consensus for one now, and it would be lost."—[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 266.]

and recently the right hon. Gentleman said that neither he nor the Welsh First Minister was

"in the business of calling referendums we are going to lose."

That is all well and good, but if the Secretary of State fears that the people of Wales would vote against the transfer of primary powers to the Assembly, why is he so insistent on inflicting those powers on the people of Wales, whether or not they want them?

The suspicion must be—I hope that it is not unfair—that some internal Labour party tension is prompting the proposals in part 3, which enable the transfer of powers to the Assembly while preserving the illusion of power remaining at Westminster, whereas, in fact, the power remains in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales. The fact that the proposals constitute such a device was acknowledged by Lord Richard when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. What he said has been quoted before, but it deserves to be quoted again. He 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. It is quite an interesting device. . . . Westminster can say they have not devolved primary legislative powers, but depending on the way in which the Order in Council procedure is used, it could in effect be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff."

In fact, it is more than almost; it is the transfer of a direct legislative competence to Cardiff without first consulting the people of Wales in a referendum.

That is reprehensible, and made all the more so by the fact that control of the whole procedure resides in the Executive and not in this House. The Minister shakes his head, but it is true: control rests with the Secretary of State for Wales, not with this House. The proposals represent a fraud on the people of Wales and the electorate of the entire United Kingdom. If the people of Wales are to have more devolution—not an ignoble aspiration on the part of those who want it—we should be entirely satisfied that that is what they want. Part 3 is wholly unnecessary; it is in the Bill purely and simply to serve the internal interests of the Labour party.

I say that we should proceed immediately to part 4 and consult the people of Wales now, through a referendum, on whether they do indeed want more legislative competence to be handed down to Cardiff. If so, we must abide by their decision and hand over that power. If not, we must equally respect their decision. The proposal is a three-card trick—an absolute disgrace to the Labour party. Perhaps the absence of Labour Members indicates the shame that they feel. What is proposed is an illegitimate exercise—an attempt to usurp the powers of this place. It is wholly reprehensible and the amendment should be supported.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Well, we have gone over the same old ground as we did in Committee. Let me put on the record what is, in fact, proposed in part 3, and not the fantasy outlined by Conservative Members. The purpose of part 3 is to provide the Assembly with a streamlined procedure to achieve its legislative priorities. It builds on the existing devolution settlement, giving the Assembly greater scope to determine the detail of Welsh legislation, but with Parliament remaining in overall control through the Order in Council process. It will enable the Assembly to break free from the Westminster logjam without fundamentally altering the devolution settlement. That was approved by the referendum in 1997.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The Minister repeats what he said on Second Reading—that there is a legislative logjam—but we established in Committee that there is no legislative logjam. Why should we take seriously what he has to say when, in fact, he is merely repeating verbatim what he said on Second Reading and not engaging in debate at all.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

It is not surprising that I repeat what I said verbatim: the hon. Gentleman made the same points on Second Reading and I am merely responding to them.

The hon. Gentleman claims that there is no legislative logjam, but of course there is. The Welsh Assembly cannot get legislation on the statute book as quickly as it would like to. The Bill proposes a way to deal with that problem.

Everyone agrees that the split between the legislature and the Executive needs to be established, but if amendment No. 4 were passed, it would result in the absurdity of a legislature without any legislative powers. The Assembly might have to wait many years to acquire primary powers in a referendum; in the meantime, Wales would be wholly dependent on primary legislation passed at Westminster, which would have to compete for time with UK Government priorities.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

The Minister suggests that there would be a delay of years, but why should there be any delay at all? Why do the Government not simply proceed immediately to a referendum under part 4? Is it because they know that they would lose it?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

As we have debated on many occasions and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained several times, the Labour party's view is that if a referendum on any particular issue were held now, there would be no guarantee that it would be won. That would deal a fundamental blow to the confidence and reputation of the Assembly. We have put part 4 in the Bill so that, in the future, when a two-thirds majority in the Assembly deem that the time is right for a referendum and that there is a consensus in Wales in favour of moving forward to full primary powers, a referendum will be held. At present, the judgment is that now is not the time.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

The Minister said that the Government would not hold a referendum because there is no guarantee that they will win it. Does not that underline the point that we have been trying to make, which is that the Government have got into the habit of holding referendums only when they feel that they can win them, whereas we believe in holding referendums to allow people to have their say?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am trying to remember how many referendums were held in 18 years of Tory rule. The answer is: not one. I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman about referendums. His argument is bizarre. The purpose of referendums is to establish people's view on a change.

It is pointless to hold a referendum if one knows that one is not going to achieve the change that is its purpose. [Interruption.] I am not going to take any lectures from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was a member of the Cabinet for many of the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in government. During that period, not one referendum was held.

The procedure set out in part 3 will enable the Assembly to deal in a more timely way with legislation to deliver manifesto commitments made by Welsh Ministers, and will prevent the need to secure slots for Wales-only Bills or to rely on suitable England and Wales Bills being introduced at the right time.

Turning to Conservative new clause 1, which is the same as new clause 6, which was debated and rejected in Committee, the proposal to hold a referendum before the relevant part of the Bill can come into effect is unnecessary. There was a clear commitment in the Labour manifesto at the general election in May 2005 to

"legislate for a stronger Assembly with enhanced legislative powers".

The Government were elected on that manifesto. It is argued that the proposals were not set out in detail for the electorate, but the electorate knows that once a Government are formed their job is to introduce detailed proposals, and that is what we did in the White Paper published in June last year. There was not a single response among the 81 responses received to suggest that a referendum was required before the Assembly could be granted power to make Assembly Measures on matters on which Parliament had given it legislative competence. Those powers are an adaptation of the current settlement, not a fundamental change, and they are not the same as giving the Assembly primary powers.

Part 3 does not give the Assembly any new powers to legislate on devolved subjects, but it provides a new procedure for Parliament to grant such powers. It is extraordinary that the Opposition should want Parliament to hold an expensive referendum to seek permission to change our own procedures. Parliament will be able to scrutinise and control on a case-by-case basis the draft Orders in Council that confer those legislative powers on the Assembly. It will rightly be for the Assembly to scrutinise the way in which its legislative competence is used to enact Assembly Measures that address the needs of Wales. Since 1999, Parliament has passed legislation that gives the Assembly powers to make its own provisions for Wales. Increasingly, Parliament has been willing to give the Assembly broad powers to legislate in Wales-only clauses in England and Wales Bills. The proposed system develops that approach. Parliament still has control of the process, as legislative competence cannot be conferred on the Assembly unless both Houses of Parliament have agreed to do so. It is essential that part 3 should be in place from the outset. It is essential, too, that the Assembly should have the ability to seek legislative competence on its own initiative.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The Minister says that it is essential that part 3 should be in place, yet only a few moments ago, he acknowledged that part 4 probably could not be implemented because the people of Wales did not want it. Why does he think that part 3 is desired by the people of Wales?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Because they voted for a Labour Government and a Labour manifesto.

Amendment No. 5, which was tabled by the Conservatives, deals with Assembly resolutions to ask Parliament to pass legislation on devolved matters, but it would not change the legal effect of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Assembly from making such a resolution. While Parliament passes legislation, it is for Government to introduce it, so the Government's role could not be circumvented and the amendment is not required. In addition, I remind Members of the provision in clause 33 whereby the Secretary of State is required to consult the Assembly about the Government's legislative programme. The Assembly can use the consultation to ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of matters that it wishes to be dealt with in primary legislation affecting Wales, whether or not the Assembly has competence to make Assembly Measures on those matters. There is therefore no need for the amendment.

Turning to new clause 3, I have made it clear throughout the progress of the Bill that pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed Orders in Council under clause 94 should be at the discretion of Members of Parliament and of Assembly Members. It is worth maintaining flexibility, rather than specifying requirements for joint scrutiny in the Bill. It is worth noting, too, that the House of Commons already makes provision for the Welsh Affairs Committee to undertake joint inquiries with Assembly Committees under Standing Orders Nos. 137A(1)(a) and 137A(3). That arrangement has led to successful pre-legislative scrutiny of a number of Wales-only Bills, so we do not require any further legislation. The right way forward is to allow Parliament to work with the Assembly to develop that successful model further, rather than establish over-prescriptive requirements in legislation. The way in which pre-legislative scrutiny is carried out is usually left to Parliament to decide, rather than being specified in legislation. Standing Orders, not legislation, are the appropriate means of dealing with that.

Amendment No. 7, which was tabled by the Conservatives, would prevent Orders in Council that amend schedule 5 from being made before the Assembly election in 2007. The Bill provides for the early commencement of clauses 94 and 95 so that clarifying amendments can be made to schedule 5 before general commencement, should that prove necessary. For example, if one of the descriptions of fields or matters in schedule 5 is found to be insufficiently clear, an Order in Council under clause 94 could be proposed to clarify the extent of the field or matter. I am quite happy to place on record the fact that it is not intended that such Orders in Council should be used to confer wholly new legislative competence on the Assembly in advance of general commencement of the Bill following the 2007 election. Although the Bill provides that sections 94 and 95 will come into force on the day on which it is enacted, in fact, we would not carry out any functions under those sections for a period of two months following Royal Assent.

Under amendments Nos. 59 to 61, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott), Parliament cannot be written out of the process of approving draft Orders in Council. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was quite right—the amendments would mean that there would be no parliamentary scrutiny of Orders in Council. It is not acceptable for the Assembly to vote itself additional powers. It is for Parliament to decide whether it is appropriate to confer legislative competence on the Assembly. Parliament has the right to legislate in relation to Wales, so it has the right to decide whether to allow another legislature to do so.

Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would leave the Secretary of State with a vestigial role in the process. He or she would receive notice of a draft Order in Council approved by the Assembly, but he or she could do no more than sit on it for up to 30 days before having to return it to the Clerk of the Assembly, who would submit the draft Order for approval by Her Majesty in Council. There would not be any scrutiny by Parliament. The amendments illustrate the dangers of starting to unpick the Bill's provisions. If the Assembly could give itself legislative competence, what opportunity would there be to challenge it? I assume that the 30 day-provision is designed to cater for that, but it is a most unsatisfactory way of tackling the issue. I therefore urge hon. Members who have tabled amendments in this group not to press them any further.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I suspect that the Minister and I agree on one thing—amendment No. 59 encapsulates the criticism that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made of the Liberal Democrats. When faced with a difficult choice, they decided that the best way to proceed was to eliminate all form of democratic scrutiny from the legislation to enable the Secretary of State to have a free hand with the Assembly without any intervention from Parliament in part 3. I do not know whether they intend to press their amendment to a vote, but I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 4.

The Minister has been wholly unpersuasive on the matter. One of the most telling comments that we have heard during the debate was the confession made for the first time by the Government that they considered that part 4 would not pass a referendum in Wales. Regrettable though that might be to my right hon. Friend and others, it highlights the absurdity of the Government proceeding by means of part 3. The justification offered to the House was that the Assembly would otherwise wither on the vine, whereas in fact it can have a perfectly respectable and separate existence implementing secondary legislation, if that is what the people of Wales want. There is no reason why the Executive cannot be split from the Legislature in order to improve that, which is why we supported the part of the Bill which does exactly that.

Our position is that in the absence of an assurance from the Government that there would be a referendum on the implementation of part 3, the only proper course of action is to remove part 3 from the Bill entirely. The people of Wales will lose nothing thereby. Part 4 offers them real change if they want it. The other parts of the Bill, particularly the splitting of the Assembly and the Legislature, offer them a new format for governance along current lines, if that is what they want. Part 3 should have no place in the Bill, and I urge every hon. Member in the House to support us in opposing it. If we do not succeed in removing part 3, I hope at the appropriate moment later this evening to press new clause 1 to the vote.

Clause 92 — Assembly Measures

Clause 94 — Legislative competence: supplementary

Clause 101 — Approval of proposed Assembly Measures

Clause 106 — Acts of the Assembly

Clause 107 — Legislative competence

Clause 114 — Royal Assent

Clause 120 — Borrowing by Welsh Ministers

Schedule 8 — Auditor General for Wales

Clause 147 — Meaning of "Welsh public records"

Clause 152 — Power to vary retrospective decisions

Clause 157 — Interpretation

Schedule 10 — Minor and consequential amendments

Clause 160 — Commencement

Schedule 11 — Transitional Provisions

New Clause 2 — referendum not to be held more than ten years after passing of act

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

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

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Interval between referendums—

'No Order in Council under section 102 (1) (other than the first such Order in Council) may be made until four years have elapsed after the referendum held by virtue of the previous Order in Council under subsection (1).'.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

During our debates on the preceding amendments, it was said that, if a referendum were held, it would be lost and that the Government therefore did not plan to hold one. However, the Bill places no time limit on holding such a referendum. Although the Secretary of State said that he intended the measure to settle the constitutional situation in Wales for a generation, it cannot be right that there is no end position about holding a referendum. Foresight in government and in legislation is always important, but we could be legislating for something that took place in 20 or 30 years, when it could not be described as depending on specific circumstances. That is inappropriate and it is why we have tabled the new clause.

The new clause clearly provides that if a referendum on giving the National Assembly full law-making powers such as those set out in part 4 had not been held after 10 years, fresh legislation would be required. There is good reason for that. We are legislating on the basis of a referendum that we are already told would be lost. There is no logic in requiring that to happen in 15, 20 or more years.

The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary conceded that a referendum would be lost. The Secretary of State said that he did not anticipate holding a referendum for the rest of the decade. We therefore propose 10 years as a reasonable period in which to allow a referendum to take place. It is not unreasonable to ask Parliament to reconsider the matter if a referendum has not happened in 10 years. If the Secretary of State and the Government are sincere about presenting the argument to persuade the people of Wales to take forward, through the Assembly, the powers in part 4, they could do that, by any reasonable reckoning, in 10 years.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

If one provides for a specified period—whether five or 10 years—does not the hon. Gentleman believe that, when one approaches it, an impetus would be created that perhaps would not exist if the normal process were followed?

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Unless I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, his intervention is an argument for the new clause, which provides that a referendum should take place in a fixed time period to focus minds on the matter, rather than some nebulous, distant provision. As many speakers have said, there is a lack of clarity about the Government's intentions. Do they want to increase powers and put the Welsh Assembly on the same footing as the Scottish Parliament, or are they simply conducting a smoke-and-mirrors exercise? The fact that they do not have the confidence to hold a referendum now or in 10 years leads me to suspect that there is no will in the Government or the Labour party in Wales to campaign on the issues in part 4. Unless the Under-Secretary says something new and surprising, we are not minded to accept an open-ended provision and we shall press the new clause to a Division. He may surprise us with something that gives us comfort or hope—we shall wait and see.

New clause 13 is about the frequency of referendums and its purpose is clear. It would prevent a further referendum on part 4 powers from taking place for at least four years after the date of the first one. It would thus prevent the Assembly from simply holding repeat referendums at regular intervals until the desired result was achieved. We believe that if a referendum on part 4 powers is held and the vote is no, the result should trigger a period of reflection.

A minimum interval of four years means that only one referendum could be held during an Assembly term. Any further referendums would have to be endorsed by the people of Wales at an Assembly election. We have heard much during our proceedings about the importance of election results in ascertaining the views of the people of Wales. It is therefore appropriate that they should have a say about whether a further referendum should be conducted shortly after a previous one.

I am not fully au fait with the details of the repeat referendums in Quebec in the 1970s and 1980s, but asking the same question repeatedly until the public are ground down, through a war of attrition, either to vote in a particular way or to turn out in low numbers is unsatisfactory. It is possible to envisage repeat referendums being used for political purposes rather than for taking forward the constitutional arrangements for Wales or for the enhancement of the Welsh Assembly.

Both the new clauses are fair and reasonable in the context of the Bill, and in the context of the debate about the appropriateness of holding referendums. As has been stated in the debates on previous amendments, the logic remains that a referendum should be held under the part 4 arrangements as soon as the legislation is passed, so that the people of Wales can give their view straight away. The matter would then be settled for a significant period. However, the Government are clearly not minded to do that and, in those circumstances, we would want to establish a process to ensure that there was a cap on the period in which a referendum had to be held. For the reasons that I have set out, we suggest a period of 10 years. In addition, new clause 13 would prevent the possibility of holding repeat referendums.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The practical effect of new clause 2 would be to ensure that a referendum under the terms of the Bill could not be called by Order in Council more than 10 years after the Bill had received Royal Assent. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) that I cannot accept that such an arbitrary time limit on the possibility of enacting the part 4 provisions is necessary. Those provisions do not have a use-by date.

Under the Bill, the timing of a referendum would have to be considered and agreed on by a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and by both Houses of Parliament. That consideration by democratically elected bodies, and not an arbitrary 10-year time limit in the Bill, will ensure that the referendum is held at an appropriate time. The Secretary of State has said that he cannot see a referendum happening before 2011, because it makes sense to see how the provisions enabling the Assembly to make measures bed down first. I cannot predict at this stage exactly when a referendum should be held, and it would be inappropriate for me to say that a referendum should be held within 10 years, or not at all.

New clause 13 is aimed directly at ensuring that there would have to be a gap of four years between any referendum and an Order in Council calling for a further referendum. The fact that a referendum can be held only with the agreement of two thirds of the Assembly, the Secretary of State and both Houses of Parliament—all of whom would be aware of the financial and political cost of frequent repeated referendums—is safeguard enough in this respect. I fully agree that frequent referendums under the Bill would be counter-productive. However, the process for approving a call for a referendum that is built into the Bill will ensure that referendums are not called repeatedly for no good reason. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

As we anticipated, the Minister's response contained no surprises. I hope that he is correct about the issues raised by new clause 13, and that fiscal prudence, if nothing else, will prevent the repeated use of referendums. However, given that referendums have been called repeatedly in other jurisdictions when the political climate has been ripe for them, I do not believe that the possibility can be ruled out. I would have preferred to see the new clause being accepted.

I am not in the least satisfied by the Minister's response to my arguments on new clause 2. I do not believe that 10 years is an arbitrary period. I had understood that the Government were now going to promote the concept of sunset clauses in legislation. A period must necessarily be determined in which to hold the referendum, and 10 years is a fair period to choose. Circumstances could change significantly in that time, and if the Government and the Welsh Assembly were not confident that they could secure a majority in a referendum 10 years after the passage of the Bill, it would be appropriate to revisit the legislation and examine the issues relating to the powers involved. One reason for a lack of confidence in the result of a referendum might be to do with the nature and structure of the proposed legislation. On that basis, I intend to press new clause 2 to a vote.

New Clause 11 — Allocation of funds

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and her colleagues for speaking so briefly on the preceding new clauses.

New clause 11 deals with the allocation of funds. It returns us to the age-old debate, which I have initiated many times over the past nine years, about the principles of fairness, transparency and a needs-based formula for conveying money to the Welsh Assembly and thus to the Welsh people. Currently, as all Members know, we have the Barnett formula, which is so discredited that Barnett himself—the inventor of the formula—says that he is ashamed to be associated with it. It was good for its time but its time has long gone, and for that reason we Liberal Democrats propose new clause 11, which would require the Secretary of State to

"appoint a panel of not less than four and not more than six experts to recommend the sums of money to be allocated to the Welsh Consolidated Fund."

The Secretary of State would also be required to publish in full the terms of any funding recommendations made by the panel. Moreover, the panel would have specific regard to

"the principle of fairness . . . the principle of transparency . . . and . . . the particular needs of Wales."

The problem is that the Barnett formula is not needs-based and does not take account of the social and economic conditions of Wales. Furthermore, it has random unintended consequences that create difficulties in allocating funds to Welsh expenditure. If we compare what Wales is given with what it needs, it is clear that it often loses out. The levels of deprivation in Wales and its economic circumstances are often quite different from those in the rest of the UK. So our request is very simple: that the Government take on board a recommendation that has come from all quarters, including from the inventor of the existing formula himself; and that, for once, they listen to recommendations—made, on this occasion, by Opposition politicians—based on common sense.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The other day, the First Minister said that Wales has 5 per cent. of the UK's population and makes 4 per cent. of its income but receives 6 per cent. of that income. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage improving those figures through his new clause, or worsening them?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

We are not seeking to gerrymander the formula in favour of Wales; rather we are trying to ensure that it is fair to Wales—and, for that matter, to Scotland and Northern Ireland—by it being needs-based. We have to take the chance that, as Wales prospers under a Liberal Democrat Administration, its funding will be less because its needs will be less. But so far as we are concerned, this is not about begging bowls and asking for more; rather, we are asking for fairness. As the new clause makes clear,

"fairness . . . transparency . . . and the particular needs of Wales"

are the right bases on which to allocate funds.

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing what the Minister and others have to say. I hope that he will say that he has been persuaded by the arguments—arguments that have been made many times before—and that he will incorporate the new clause. If he does, he will be a hero not just to the Liberal Democrats but to the people of Wales. If he does not, he will stand condemned alongside other Ministers who have shown a similar unwillingness to demonstrate the ability to listen that this "listening" Government so often claim for themselves.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I was not going to speak to this new clause—until I heard what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) had to say, whereupon I was forced to my feet. I am sorry to say that if he presses it to a vote, I will be unable to recommend to my hon. Friends that they support him, not least because of the wishy-washy nature of subsection (3). [Interruption.] Someone said "Surely not" from a sedentary position, but

"the principle of fairness . . . the principle of transparency . . . and . . . the particular needs of Wales"

is fairly wishy-washy and imprecise language, as I anticipate the Minister will agree.

This is possibly a good-hearted attempted by the Liberal Democrats and I do want to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, who is probably leading with his heart but certainly not with his head. As he just said, if, under this new and magic formula Wales gets less money, well, so be it. Of course, much as that might appeal to people in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, I doubt whether the people of Wales would be very happy to discover such an attitude toward the support that they receive. As I pointed out earlier, the First Minister has said that he supports the current situation. I therefore doubt very much whether the Government will accept the new clause—particularly given that it has not been planted and then moved by a Labour Back Bencher, but has genuinely come from the Liberal Democrats—because doing so would put them directly at odds with the First Minister.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is obviously taking a view in her capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Wales, but does she not think that a fairer and more transparent system would be in the interests of many of the English constituents whom she and I represent?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps in danger of being ruled out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] You are indeed nodding, and we are not going to go down that route. We are not discussing the English regions, much, of course, to his chagrin; rather, we are discussing Wales and the people of Wales and what is best for them.

Although the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has tabled the new clause with hope in his heart, to be fair to the people of Wales, he is probably doing them a great disservice in doing so. If he presses it to a vote, I will be unable to support it.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

I am disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)—who has been gracious, as ever—say that, unfortunately, the Conservatives will not support the new clause, despite the spirit of revisionism that seems to be blowing through their party as we speak. This is an opportunity for us to raise the hugely important question of the Barnett formula, which is a non-statutory formula. Indeed, this is one of the few opportunities that we have had in recent years to force a vote on this issue, which, notwithstanding law-making powers and the various other important matters that we have been discussing, is probably the single most important determinant of the Assembly's and the Assembly Government's ability to improve the lives of the people of Wales.

The Barnett formula is a convergent formula: over time, it results in a fall in the relative position of public expenditure per capita in Wales, compared with England. For example, only six years ago—in 1999–2000—the public expenditure per capita index figure for devolved services in Wales was 115. Now, it has fallen to 112, which is a very significant relative fall over that period. That process will continue until we reach the point at which Wales and England are exactly the same, even though there is no guarantee that the level of need in Wales and England—the economic and social position—will be identical. That is why we must support the principle of a needs-based formula.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

This matter is far too important to be discussed in the dying minutes of consideration on Report. It demands full and fair examination at another point, and in that regard I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). Before I paint myself into a corner, let me reiterate that this issue needs discussion, but not at 19 minutes past 8 o'clock, with a guillotine about to fall at 8.30.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

I accept that and look forward to the Conservative party devoting one of its Opposition days to a call for the revision of the Barnett formula. We would support such a motion, as we will support the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby tonight. This matter is far too important to be left to party politics.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, and said that he supported the Barnett formula. I am sure that he does now, but in 1997 he told the Treasury Committee that the formula was "detrimental" to Wales. Moreover, he said in an interview with John Humphrys that the formula was

"putting a lot of pressure on expenditure in Wales. We now cannot keep up with the percentage increases in health and education that the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Employment are doing in England."

That shows that the First Minister at that time supported our proposals. As has happened all too often, however, he has failed to support our position now.

The Government claim that there is no evidence for the position adopted by my party and others, but there is plenty, and the amount is growing. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, even the formula's progenitor agrees that it is long overdue for revision. If we do not act now, we will continue to suffer.

I appeal to Labour Members—we must move away from the Barnett formula. It is detrimental to Wales, and Northern Ireland is also beginning to suffer from the effects of the Barnett squeeze. The problem will continue to get worse, unless and until we get a proper formula that is fair to the nations of these islands and to the regions of England. It is a matter of territorial justice; for example, per capital expenditure on public services in some parts of the south-west region of England is very low. We need a root and branch reform of the allocation of finances in these islands.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The problem with new clause 11 is that it would set up a panel of so-called experts to make recommendations about the Welsh block grant. In other words, it would create another new quango to determine how much money would be devoted to public expenditure in Wales.

The Barnett formula has been used for some time to determine public expenditure in Wales, and has produced significant increases in that expenditure, but the quango created by the new clause would make recommendations in isolation from the rest of the UK. It would not pay heed to fairness, transparency and the particular needs of Wales—language that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) described as "wishy-washy".

Essentially, the new clause would adjust public expenditure in Wales according to the views of the panel of experts, but in isolation from what was happening with public expenditure in the rest of the UK. However, funding public expenditure in Wales cannot be separated from what happens in the UK as a whole. I think that hon. Members recognise that, although the new clause does not.

No rational system of resource allocation for public expenditure could ever consider funding the needs of one part of the UK in isolation from the whole, as that would make it impossible to manage any logical process for setting budgets. The Barnett formula is operated by the Treasury, and it determines the funding allocations for Northern Ireland and Scotland as well as for Wales. However, this Bill deals only with Wales, and so is inappropriate for the new clause's proposal to abandon the Barnett formula in respect of Wales alone and replace it with a new system for allocating public expenditure there.

The Barnett formula has been criticised by various hon. Members, but it has worked well in practice. It has provided a stable and secure financial context, and allowed the National Assembly to plan public expenditure with some confidence. The National Assembly has received financial settlements without the need for lengthy annual negotiations with the Treasury. The Barnett formula is a relatively simple mechanism, whereby money is allocated to the National Assembly in a way that is open, transparent and comprehensible to the people of Wales.

The Barnett formula ensures that changes to planned public expenditure on comparable services in England are properly reflected in the budget in Wales. The formula will provide average growth of more than 4 per cent. each year in the period since the spending review of 2004. All public institutions must be realistic and work within a fixed budget. They have to concentrate on the outcomes of the use of public money, and not just on the quantum figure, important though that is.

The National Assembly Government are committed to providing quality public services, using the funding provided through the Barnett formula. As a result of that process, the Assembly budget has risen from less than £8 billion in 1999 to more than £14 billion in 2007–08. That means that the budget has almost doubled in that period.

I confirm that the Government have no plans to review the Barnett formula, which has served the UK very effectively. In practice, it has produced reasonably fair settlements, and we will continue to monitor its operation to ensure that it is being applied properly and rigorously. Clearly, the mechanism has some advantages in the context of devolved government, and indeed it was developed originally by Joel Barnett in the 1970s when the question of devolution was first visited.

The Barnett formula is simple to understand, and provides the degree of stability that is essential in the consequential flow of resources to Wales. It also allows Administrations a considerable degree of freedom when it comes to making spending decisions. The Government have looked carefully at the matter, but we have concluded that there is no advantage in reopening the question of the Barnett formula at this time.

New clause 11 is well meaning, but would be unworkable in practice. It would create yet another quango, and mean that decisions about public expenditure in Wales would be made outside the context of such decisions in respect of the rest of the UK.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the funding calculation was too important to be decided in the dying moments of the Report stage of this Bill. We agree, which is why we tabled the new clause. We are suggesting that the experts should say how we decide the formulation. We all agree that there are flaws in the system, and the Liberal Democrats feel that the flaws are so significant that we should change the formula.

The hon. Lady also quoted the First Minister in defence of the existing formulation, but we have heard from the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) that the First Minister himself has criticised the formula on other occasions, when it suited him to do so. We cannot pretend that he has any consistent form on the issue.

Ranting a series of numbers at the Opposition is not a sufficient defence of the existing formulation. This is not about specific figures, but about fairness and transparency. I must point out to the Minister that it is obvious that when we talk about the principle of fairness, that has to be seen in the context of the UK. When we talk about the principle of transparency, that has to be seen alongside the principle of collective decision making, not as some isolationist approach for Wales. And when we talk about the particular needs of Wales, of course we have to think about the needs of the rest of the UK as well. For those reasons, the Minister should recognise the strength of feeling that many of us have in favour of a change—and that is why I need to press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 12 — Business scheme

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

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

If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have a daughter of Wales in the Chair at this time is indeed most appropriate.

St. David's day, tomorrow, sees the official opening of the inspirational new Assembly building in Cardiff bay—the very same building where the Bill was launched only two and a half months ago. A truly iconic building that has attracted architectural acclaim from all over the world, I have no doubt that it will become a powerful symbol of the new Wales. With the Bill now empowering the Assembly to be bolder and more ambitious than ever before, the people of Wales have all the more reason to feel proud.

Devolution and decentralisation of power have been watchwords of the Labour Government. Just as one of our first acts in 1997 was to bring forward proposals for an Assembly for Wales, so we have moved swiftly in our third term to build on the success of devolution. Once again, that destroys the myth that any party other than Labour is the true party of devolution. It was a Labour Government who appointed the first ever Secretary of State for Wales. It was a Labour Government who broadened and deepened the role of the then Welsh Office. It was a Labour Government who passed the first Welsh Language Act in 1967 and it was a Labour Government who called the 1997 referendum and then passed legislation for a democratically elected Assembly for Wales.

No other party has come anywhere near to delivering so much for Wales. Indeed, no other party has ever delivered any devolution for Wales. So as we commemorate 100 years of the parliamentary Labour party, we can be truly proud that devolution, one of the ideals of our first parliamentary leader, Keir Hardie, has not only been achieved, but is being improved. Once again, it is Labour and only Labour that is delivering on devolution.

I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales for his sterling work on the Bill. After four years of silence in the confines of the Whips Office, his voice has been heard during the five days of consideration that the House has given to the Bill. He has dealt patiently and diligently with the issues that Members have raised.

I should also like to express my appreciation of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who, notwithstanding his role as a Whip, has also been able to assist in the progress of the Bill from the Front Bench. Similarly, I thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who has supported me with his customary energy and enthusiasm—the quietest man in the House. Above all, I thank my excellent team of hard-working officials, drawn from both the Welsh Assembly and our own Wales Office—a partnership in action.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), who, with the members of his Select Committee, produced a report on the Bill that helped to inform our deliberations. As I have said previously, I envisage his Committee playing a very significant role in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed Orders in Council that will come before the House by virtue of the proposals contained in part 3. Such pre-scrutiny is crucial, and it will be open to all Members to submit written evidence for consideration, or even to seek to give oral testimony if they so prefer.

I am glad that we have been able to subject the Bill to detailed scrutiny, through some 33 hours of debate on the Floor of the House. The House will be aware that the vast bulk of the Bill was either modelled closely on the Government of Wales Act 1998, or modelled on other statutory provisions that have worked effectively. The finance provisions, for example, draw heavily on those in the Scotland Act 1998. Those 141 clauses have broad cross-party support. I am therefore particularly pleased that the House was able to concentrate its scrutiny on those parts of the Bill that are genuinely new—the 24 clauses on enhanced and primary powers and our proposed electoral changes. Those are clearly the most significant parts of the Bill, and I am pleased that they have been given such thorough consideration.

One thing that has not survived the scrutiny of the House is the credibility of the Opposition and their new, supposedly more constructive stance on devolution. First, they tried to scupper the Bill at the outset by tabling a reasoned amendment on Second Reading, and I am told that they may even vote against the Bill on Third Reading. Then they attempted to construct a process of 16 locks to hamper the Assembly acquiring enhanced legislative powers. Then we saw them try to insist on a referendum before Parliament could grant the Assembly even a modest extension of its legislative powers through the Order-in-Council process. Then they tabled amendments that would have reduced the democratically elected Assembly to little more than a Committee of Parliament.

Finally, the Opposition tried to strike enhanced powers out of the Bill altogether, even though such powers were a clear Labour election manifesto commitment. It is hard to square that approach with the view of their leader, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who says that he wants to make devolution work. It is even harder to reconcile that with his opinion that, on devolution, the Tories share the views of the Liberal Democrats. They called themselves liberal Conservatives in the recent Scottish by-election. Well, there is not much liberal about their attitude to Wales. I thought the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) would bring a new approach; instead, she has played the same old Tory gramophone record of suspicion and hostility to more powers for Wales.

On dual candidacy, we have learned that the Opposition are against the ban because, as the shadow Attorney-General told us, they

"wish to maximise the chance of getting their chosen people into the Assembly.—[Official Report, 30 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. 112.]

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) was worried that such a reform would make life tougher for weak Tory candidates. The Government's view remains that such matters are for the electorate, rather than the political parties, to determine, so we intend to put the voters back in charge by requiring candidates to choose between the constituency and the list seats and by removing the ability of candidates to guarantee election for themselves regardless of the voters' verdict. There will be no more each-way bets at the voters' expense.

We have made great progress in Wales since the establishment of the Assembly, through a strong partnership between our UK Government and Rhodri Morgan's Labour Welsh Assembly Government. Wales has a strong economy, more jobs, rising prosperity, better hospitals and better schools, but it still has huge challenges to face. Levels of economic inactivity are still far too high. Welsh industry is facing tough global economic competition. Although crime is falling compared with the situation under the Conservative Government, it must be reduced still further, and antisocial behaviour must be combated. We also face important decisions on energy policy to cut costs, guarantee security of supply and keep Wales clean and green. By giving the Assembly the means, through the Bill, to respond to those huge challenges, we will enable Welsh politics to focus on policy delivery, rather than debate about more or fewer powers.

The Bill will settle the constitutional debate in Wales for a generation. For the first time ever, it places full law-making powers for Wales on the statute book. It also recognises the need to proceed by consensus, requiring a referendum while providing a path towards primary powers when that consensus emerges. Some argue that that does not go far enough and that we should move to a referendum immediately. All I say to them is: remember what happened in 1979. The defeat then set back the cause of devolution for a generation. Even in 1997, when all the parties except the Tories were united, we only just squeaked home. I have no doubt that if a referendum were held today, it would be lost. Indeed, I cannot see it happening before the end of this decade.

I urge all supporters of primary powers, of whom I am one, to recognise the need for consensus. The Bill provides a route to primary powers, but places the responsibility on supporters of primary powers to go out there, build a consensus and win the argument. In the meantime, the Bill develops the existing devolution settlement by conferring enhanced legislative powers on the Assembly—while ensuring that Parliament remains in overall control—and giving it greater discretion to determine the detail of Welsh legislation. That streamlined procedure will enable the Assembly to break free from the Westminster logjam, while ensuring that the final say remains with Parliament just as it does today, as was endorsed in the 1997 referendum. The Bill also means that the Assembly will start to gain new powers from 2007—four years earlier than the Richard commission recommended.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whom I commend for his insightful contributions during the course of our deliberations on the Bill, has referred to the views of the man in Splott market. I am sure that he would agree that the true test of devolution is whether it enables us to deliver positive benefits and lasting changes to the lives of our constituents, whether they be in Cardiff, Pontypool, Neath or Holyhead. The Bill will enable the Assembly to achieve exactly that. It is right at the political centre of gravity in Wales. It provides for better, more responsive, more accountable Welsh government and helps us to build a world-class Wales.

The Bill will provide a lasting constitutional settlement for Wales. It establishes a flexible constitutional architecture that will adapt to Wales's changing needs over the years to come. It is designed to endure. Whatever changing circumstances we face over the coming years, there will be no case for a successor Government of Wales Bill in the decades to come—this really is it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I offer the Secretary of State and all Welsh Members my best wishes for St. David's day tomorrow. I was at a delightful service earlier today in St. Mary Undercroft with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. Together with the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott), we had the privilege of contributing to the service to celebrate St. David's day. I was sporting a daffodil at that stage, but I am not now because I gave it to a little girl—I think from the London Welsh school—who was also performing at the service. I thought that that was rather nice because she was able to take it home to her mother. I notice that Members on the Labour Front Bench are already wearing their daffodils, but that the Secretary of State's daffodil is wilting rather badly. That, I hope, is a reflection on Labour's fortunes in Wales, particularly after this Bill.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for their assistance on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) argued with great erudition, particularly on using Orders in Council to delegate law making to secondary legislation. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. He is exact and precise, and he has not found his equal at the Dispatch Box in the Under-Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who I think is taking a well earned break, having been on the Bench alongside me for many hours, has argued from a position of great knowledge on devolution, particularly in Scotland. It is sad that the arguments made by Opposition Members have been swept aside by the Government and given little credence.

There have been valuable contributions from Opposition Members. I draw attention in particular to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I am pleased to note that the three Conservative Members with Welsh seats have all participated in the proceedings on the Bill. I wish that the same could be said for Labour Members with Welsh seats, not all of whom, I am afraid, have taken an active part or interest in the passage of the Bill.

I started on Second Reading with a positive attitude towards the Bill. There were some aspects on which we agreed with the Government and others that we drew to their attention in the hope that they would rethink their proposals. We purposely did not vote against Second Reading, but chose to highlight the problem areas of the legislation with a reasoned amendment, which we used expressly to launch our concerns about some of the matters in the Bill. With the new, strong intention of my party to try to make devolution work for the people of Wales, I had hoped that the Government would respond positively to our concerns, but that has not been the case.

We see successful devolution depending not only on the support of the people but on some broad political consensus, requiring in turn constructive dialogue between the political parties. We have seen little or none of that during the Bill's passage, and I notice that the other Opposition parties also received scant responses to their points. They have been swept aside and ignored by the Labour machine, which cannot bear to be questioned on any part of the Bill.

In fact, the only amendments that have been accepted are those tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I will examine carefully what the Minister said about that, but that appeared to be a Government-placed new clause and amendment because they came as very little surprise to the Minister. [Interruption.] Yes, the new clause came from the CBI and the TUC, but it could just as easily have been tabled by the Government as by the hon. Member for Ogmore. I congratulate him on managing to at least produce some amendment to the Bill, which otherwise appears to be totally unamendable—it has much in common with the Assembly Measures that it sets up.

As the Bill has progressed, more issues have emerged, and even the Father of the House has expressed disquiet at some of the provisions. Various claims of support put forward by the Government have not prospered under close scrutiny, and it has become apparent that Labour is putting party politics before the interests of people in Wales. If we are to have a devolution arrangement in Wales that is built to last, we will need more thought and consultation with the people of Wales than is evidenced by this Bill, and all-party support as far as possible.

Briefly, taking the parts in turn, on part 1 we agree with many of the provisions. However, the partisan way in which the Government have plucked out a change to the electoral arrangements to placate their own party members and against any clear advice from the Arbuthnott commission, the Electoral Commission, leading academics and even Labour-sponsored research projects, has made a mockery of their attitude toward the Assembly itself. Even there, a tied vote on that subject revealed that only Labour Assembly Members wanted the change, and in Divisions during our debates in this place, we have had the support of all the Opposition parties. A further change at this stage will undermine electoral confidence at a time when education of the electorate would seem to be the priority, in the interests of electors themselves. Furthermore, banning dual candidacy may impinge on candidates' human rights. I hope that the Members of the other place will look closely at those provisions, coupled with those in clause 11.

We support and agree with the separation of powers of the Assembly and the Executive in part 2. That, in itself, would have justified a Bill that would have received all-party support of the sort that the Government should have sought on changes in the constitutional position of Wales.

Part 3 is fraught with problems. It introduces the Order in Council provisions, which amount to primary legislation by the back door, to cure an alleged legislative blockage, which has not been proved under questioning. I do not know who is the author of that tortuous legislative route, but it cannot be one who has the best interests of the Assembly in his heart. The procedure is devolution by statutory instrument—or, as the Father of the House said, devolution by salami-slicing. It is a device for saying one thing to one audience and another thing to another, as was pointed out by Lord Richard, whose report has largely been pushed to one side. Lord Richard has expressed some major qualifications in respect of procedure, so I hope that he and his colleagues in the other House will examine the proposals, not least because, if viewed in conjunction with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which moves the Executive away from traditional ways of legislating to Orders in Council, they lead me to believe that we need to exercise great caution about the ways in which we are changing our systems.

We have argued that, if part 3 does indeed delegate the substantial powers to which the Secretary of State referred, that should be put to the people of Wales. Apparently, that is not a route that the Government are willing to take in respect of either the part 3 powers or the part 4 powers, unless and until they can win any referendum put to the electors. The Bill is not about consulting the people of Wales but about achieving a Labour agenda.

The Secretary of State said that part 4 will settle the constitutional issue for a generation—a claim that he repeated this evening. How can that be, when part 4 leaves the question of additional powers wide open? How can it be, when not even the number of MPs has been discussed, or the number of AMs that might be required if the Assembly takes on the full law-making powers set out in part 4? Some Labour Members have suggested that the whole electoral system should be reviewed; perhaps it would have been better to reflect on that.

The Bill leaves the House with a lot of unfinished business and with a Government who are trying to create the impression that they are pro-Wales but, after scrutiny by Opposition parties, it has emerged that they are, in fact, purely pro-Labour. Claims have crumbled under scrutiny. The Secretary of State prayed in aid Lord Dahrendorf, Lord Holme and Sir John Arbuthnott, but his claims proved to be not strictly accurate. His claim that there is a legislative blockage hardly stood up to scrutiny, and his claim of abuse by AMs of the electoral system has not been substantiated. He has ignored the Richard commission, Assembly Members, the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society and leading academics to go his own way and produce legislation that means that the people of Wales will not be consulted at the right time and that will give more responsibility to the Labour Assembly Government before they have even got to grips with the responsibilities that they already have.

The Assembly Government have not yet grasped the new local democracy with efficiency or effectiveness. They have broken promises to the electorate—for example, on free care for the disabled and free breakfasts for all primary school kids. They have ditched targets on economic matters, truancy rates and GCSE pass rates, and they have presided over huge increases in waiting lists for operations. That is to name only a few areas in which the performance of the Welsh Assembly Labour Government needs to be improved. To give the Labour Assembly Government more powers before they have flourished and got to grips with the difficult business of governing in areas already under their control is like suffocating the institution before it has embarked on its democratic journey. Faith in the Labour Assembly Government is fragile. Turnout fell at the last Assembly elections by 8 per cent. to 36 per cent., and the Electoral Commission said that that was the result of a lack of awareness of the role of the Assembly and a growing disconnection between the politicians and parts of the electorate.

The Secretary of State said at the time that the low turnout was dreadful and that politicians were "talking past the people". I agree, but it is the Secretary of State who is talking past the people in the Bill. I want the Assembly and the Assembly Government to do a good job for the people of Wales, and my party wants them to succeed. The Bill includes some good proposals, but the Government could not resist the chance to play party politics with it. It is therefore with a heavy and a disappointed heart that, to support the Assembly and to give the people of Wales a voice, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Bill. I regret that we were unable to have a better dialogue with the Government during its passage.

I want no nonsense from the Secretary of State and I do not want to hear his usual track of alleging that Conservatives are against devolution. He knows that that is not true. We want to make devolution work and we want it to secure substantial cross-party agreement on many matters. Ours is not an anti-devolution vote, nor is it an anti-Assembly vote. It is a vote against a Government who put party before people. That is not good for the House, and it is not good for Wales. The Opposition will do everything they can to explain to the people of Wales that the Labour Government are trying to manipulate their future for 10 or 15 years on the basis of a Labour fix while they remain in power. I sincerely hope that they will lose that power at the next Assembly election in 2007. In the meantime, to protect the health of the Assembly, its effectiveness and efficiency, and in the interests of the people of Wales, the Opposition have been forced by the intransigence of the Secretary of State and the Government to vote against the Bill.

Martyn Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I did not take part in Committee, for the very good reason that I believed that the Government had achieved the right level of devolution and introduced the necessary changes in Wales for the Assembly to further its powers and grow in the way that we all want. I believe that Committee is the appropriate forum for Members to voice their concerns to the Government. I welcome the amendments that have been made, but I am disappointed that the Opposition are going to vote against the Bill.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

It is a total surprise.

Martyn Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I am surprised, and it is a shame. We should vote collectively for a very good Bill which, I hope, will become a very good Act that will support devolution in Wales and throughout the UK, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, for a generation to come.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

How does the hon. Gentleman square his last statement with the fact that in the Welsh Affairs Committee he voted for the abolition option in any future referendum?

Martyn Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I do not regard that as a problem at all. I believe that the referendum could offer other options, but I am happy with the provision in the Bill.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

rose—

Martyn Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) may wish to raise other desirable options. I would have liked a provision to elect 40 male and 40 female Members, so that there is an in-built gender balance. However, that is not the way this place works. The Bill, on the whole, is acceptable to my electorate and will carry forward devolution in Wales, as I said.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

The comment that we should all vote for the Bill because the hon. Gentleman happens to think it is a good idea is extraordinary, especially given the fact that, in opposition, Labour Members often voted against Bills, such as the Maastricht Bill and even the Welsh Language Act 1993, which they subsequently thought were quite good ideas. They always put their party politics first. We are putting our principles first tonight.

Martyn Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I cannot follow the logic of that: when we were in opposition, we did not put our principles first, but the Conservatives are doing the same as we did in opposition. I find that a bizarre argument. I am more than happy to support the Government on a Bill which, overall, is good for Wales.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

We have heard some interesting debates and exchanges, not least the rather curious claim from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) that as the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) points out, something that is rank and despicable when Labour does it is a matter of positive principle when done by the Conservatives. But that is not the only reversal that we have witnessed in the five days of debate on the Bill. Who would have predicted at the turn of the century that there would come a debate and a vote where the Government argued passionately in favour of the d'Hondt electoral mechanism and the Liberal Democrats voted against it? What a remarkable turn of events.

We also had the remarkable discovery of a mysterious and shady organisation, the Bevan Foundation, and we unveiled some research sponsored by a cheeky monkey from Caerphilly, as it turned out. He is not in his place today. I presume he is out there trying to prove, together with another 47 random members of the public, that 35 per cent. constitutes a majority. The most surprising claim is that because the Conservatives support devolution, they will vote against it. I studied philosophy at university, and I never came across that kind of logic. I got a 2:1, so I was not too bad at it.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said some interesting things in the spirit of the new liberal Conservatism that did so well in Dunfermline. She said a moment ago that she had started with a positive attitude towards the Bill on Second Reading. Let me remind her that she said on 9 January that

"as Leader of the Opposition just before Christmas my right hon. Friend"—

I presume she meant the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—

"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 out position. A future Conservative Government will seek a constructive relationship with the Assembly".

As far as I can tell, one can judge a party by what it does, and today, if I understood the hon. Lady correctly, the Conservative party, the official Opposition, will vote down a flawed but nevertheless genuine contribution to the devolution debate and to devolution. I agree that the Bill is disappointing, but why vote against it? Surely she understands that all the high talk about a pro-devolution Conservative Government does not stand up if the Conservatives cannot even bring themselves to support such a limited and timid measure as the Government offer.

On the subject of fighting old battles, the hon. Lady will remember that the hon. Member for Monmouth said on 9 January:

"I was delighted to stand against the original proposals for the Welsh Assembly. I can see that it has had some advantages in terms of openness, but those advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages. We have caused enormous damage to the UK".—[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 46, 88.]

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has said that her party is united, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) criticised my suggestion that there are splits. However, I did not make up those two quotations, which were made in the same debate by Conservative Members of Parliament. The biggest irony is that the Conservative Member who talks down devolution is a Welsh Member.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

rose—

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I knew that that would work.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

If the hon. Gentleman were to shorten his speech, he would get to hear some more comments. I am sure that many people would like to hear from the monkey rather than the organ grinder.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I would rather hear about the content of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I would be happy to take lessons from Conservative Members, if the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is apparently a Welsh nationalist, had stayed for Third Reading instead of making—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we should discuss the content of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal were available for comment, I am sure that he would have something to say in his defence, but no doubt he is at home writing his next speech on Northern Ireland or Scotland.

Although I have had a little bit of fun at the expense of Conservative Members, my criticism of the Conservative party is entirely serious. The Conservative party cannot be credible on devolution if it offers vague, warm words about hoping that the Bill would be good enough by Third Reading while behaving in a way that shows that its colours have not changed one iota on devolution. I believe that the mood of the hon. Member for Monmouth is in tune with what is going on in the Conservative party.

The Bill poses real dilemmas for the Liberal Democrats. We are a pro-devolution party that believes passionately in the best devolutionary arrangement for Wales, which was set out by the Richard commission. The Richard commission proposed an 80-Member Senedd with primary law-making powers elected by a single transferable vote system, and the Bill delivers some of that. The Bill provides two pathways for the Assembly to gain primary legislative powers, which are otherwise known as Assembly Measures, namely the Order in Council procedure and a referendum in Wales. It also creates a strong and clear basis for the Assembly to exercise greater powers more efficiently by separating the Assembly's Executive and legislative elements. That change was so desperately needed that the Assembly was heading that way itself through various ad hoc measures, and it is to the Government's credit that they have formalised that distinction. The Bill is a step away from the Conservative anti-devolution strategy, which would significantly dilute the potential for Wales to gain primary legislative powers by putting a whole series of restrictions and conditions between where the Liberal Democrats would like the Welsh Assembly to be and where it actually is.

So much more could have been done in the Bill, which is the product of compromise not with other parties or pro-devolution organisations in Wales, but with Labour Back Benchers. By caving in to internal pressure, the Government have missed an opportunity, and a number of points will need to be reconsidered in a future reworking of the devolution argument. In fairness, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has highlighted concerns that we share. The extreme concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State is not appropriate. The arrangement is almost colonial: unlike Scotland, Wales must go cap in hand to the Secretary of State for Wales.

The Secretary of State can turn down requests for pretty much any reason. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, every one of the modest changes that we proposed to reduce the Secretary of State's governor-like potential to intervene was rejected. The Welsh Affairs Committee said that

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

The Secretary of State can shake his head, but he must recognise that the limitations proposed by the Committee have been ignored.

The banning of dual candidacy has been discussed in great detail. We feel that there is no justification for that, as did the Richard commission. The Government have acted in a way that I can understand emotionally but is not right in terms of human rights and democracy. Having people standing in a list on a constituency basis does not devalue the integrity of the electoral system or act as a disincentive to vote in constituency elections. Nevertheless, we lost that vote, and Welsh democracy has been somewhat compromised as a result.

We talked about the Barnett formula and the injustices of having a somewhat random formulation. I proposed, and we voted on, the modest request for a panel of experts to suggest how it could be done better, but even that was not accepted by the Government.

The limit on the scope of the Welsh Assembly's powers is another frustration. The Secretary of State rightly commented on Wales's potential to be a beacon for the environment, yet the Assembly does not even have the power to legislate on power stations over 50 MW. That could become very significant in the nuclear debate.

On powers over policing, we all know that the majority of people in Wales, and a large proportion of police officers themselves, are opposed to the centralist—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman once again that a Third Reading debate concerns the contents of the Bill rather than what is not included?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

All right. Nevertheless, Madam Deputy Speaker, we did discuss those issues, and in every single case I felt that the Government were not only intransigent but completely unwilling to listen to the many reasonable points made by Members on both sides of the House.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully. He has read out a catalogue of aspects of the Bill with which he categorically does not agree. How does he think that he will help the Assembly and the people of Wales by abstaining or voting for it? Can I persuade him to join me in the Lobby with the intention of voting to try to improve the situation for the Assembly, and not to accept the flawed Bill to which he has outlined his objections?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Despite its imperfections, of which there are many, the Bill is marginally better than the existing arrangements. The channels to primary powers, narrow though they are, represent an improvement on the Government of Wales Act 1998, the passage of which I was as intimately involved in. Liberal Democrats will support the Bill because it is a small step in the right direction towards the truly democratic and authoritative representative body that Wales needs and desires. What matters now is that we understand the way in which the new system will work. In particular, I hope that the Secretary of State will apply his mind to the many criticisms of the Orders-in-Council process that he envisages. I am not even sure that we have spotted all the unintended consequences, but I suspect that it will be fraught with problems.

My answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is that we have to make a judgment about the real situation. Instead of making the tokenistic gesture of filing into the No Lobby, as if that is in any way a responsible and mature commitment to what we are trying to achieve, we will, with a heavy heart, vote with the Government.

The Conservatives feel uncomfortable about that because it serves only to highlight their anti-devolution position and I am not surprised that they want members of other parties to vote against the Bill, but there is no prospect of the Liberal Democrats doing that.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Hypocrisy.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Lady accuses me of hypocrisy. How ironic that she does that after pretending to hope that the Bill would change so much that she could vote for it on Third Reading. She pretended that, in all but absolute fact, the Conservatives voted against Second Reading, dressed up as voting for a reasoned amendment. She should be cautious before accusing me of hypocrisy. I may be many things—an unsuccessful punter when it comes to the leadership election in my party—but I do not believe that I am hypocrite.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.