Government of Wales Bill

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Presiding Officer of the Assembly, Lord Elis-Thomas, recently said that the obtaining of Orders in Council will be nothing more than a formality. Of course, he is right. It is inconceivable so long as there are Labour Administrations in Westminster and in Cardiff that a request for an Order in Council would be refused. When there are Governments of different colours in Westminster and Cardiff, as will certainly happen one day, it would be virtually impossible for Westminster—for the Secretary of State for Wales—to refuse a request without triggering a constitutional crisis. It is extraordinary that any responsible Government should seek to promote a piece of legislation that has the seeds of constitutional strife built into it. If the Government consider that further devolved power should be given to the Assembly, they should confer those powers in a more honest and open manner: through primary legislation preceded by a referendum of the Welsh people. The Government have recognised, rightly, that the Welsh people probably have no stomach for more devolution. However, that might not be the case, so why not ask them now? The Secretary of State should show sufficient respect for the constitutional conventions of this country and for the people of Wales to ask them whether they want the Assembly to have more powers. The Orders in Council procedure is devious and dishonest. That is why the reasoned amendment is absolutely right. Similarly, the proposals for a referendum at some undetermined stage in the future are wholly bizarre. It seems extraordinary that the Government should place in a Bill provisions that may never be triggered. No doubt the Government hope that the presence in the Bill of arrangements for a future referendum will engender a feeling of inevitability—a feeling that primary powers will be transferred come what may, and that it is a case of when, not whether. The proposals on electoral arrangements deserve particular condemnation. The Government have suggested that the present arrangement, whereby defeated constituency candidates can obtain a seat in the Assembly via the regional list,"““devalues the integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public and acts as a disincentive to voting in constituency elections.””—[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 264.]" No evidence of that sort was put before the Welsh Affairs Committee—in fact, quite the contrary. The Electoral Commission said that that was not the case and so did the academics. The only evidence presented was hearsay evidence offered by the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales. The case constantly cited in support of their contention is that of my constituency, Clwyd West, where in 2003 four of the five candidates were elected to the Assembly, three through the regional list. Several points may be made about that contention. It was always a foreseeable consequence of the original devolution settlement that more than one candidate for a constituency would be elected, some through the regional list. That was inherent in the devolution settlement. The case of Clwyd West was extreme, but it should not have been unanticipated—it was always perfectly obvious that something of the sort would happen. Dr. Roger Scully of Aberystwyth university said in his evidence to the Select Committee:"““Frankly, if the Government did not realise when it brought in this White Paper that that would happen, they should have done, they were negligent in not realising that.””" The reason why the Government wish to amend the arrangements is fairly obvious: Labour has no regional list Members at the moment. It is clear that the presence of regional Members vying for constituency work must be something of a nuisance to the sitting constituency Members. Clearly, they are concerned that an effective and energetic regional Member will overshadow or cast in a poor light an ineffective constituency Member. However, that, too, was always perfectly foreseeable, and even if the proposals in the Bill were adopted, the position would remain the same: regional Members would continue to be able to vie with constituency Members in terms of constituency activity. I suspect that, in due course, the standing orders that we have heard about will be used to attenuate still further the role of regional Members. I think that regional Members will find that certain types of work are out of bounds. It is even possible that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) suggested, allowances will be attenuated. It is clear that the Bill is intended to bolster Labour’s position in the constituencies at the expense of regional Members. That is a reprehensible measure.