Government of Wales Bill

I welcome the Bill, which, for the faint-hearted, does not do a great deal as regards stage two powers and, for people such as me who are enthusiasts, does a great deal as regards stage three powers. In that sense, the Secretary of State is riding two horses, and he is to be congratulated. There is a great need for reform. I am afraid that in some quarters the Assembly—the Cynulliad—has gained the name of ““Cynlleied””, or ““so little””, because many people are disappointed with the level of powers that it has. I commend the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee to hon. Members. It contains a great deal of interesting evidence that will illuminate the debates in Committee and on Report and Third Reading. One matter that the Committee investigated was the referendum. At question 99, I asked Lord Richard why we should go for stage two of the Order-in-Council procedures, which are, as everyone accepts, fairly complicated and convoluted, instead of going straight for stage three. He replied that that question was not for him but for the Secretary of State. We received a response from the Secretary of State earlier, when he said of the referendum, ““I know it would fail.”” I do not know that it would fail; indeed, I feel that it would succeed. We in Plaid Cymru have confidence that people in Wales would see the virtue of having proper powers for the Assembly. It is often said that the Assembly needs to bed in. That is a vain hope given the limited powers that it has at present. It cannot give the people of Wales a proper service because it is disabled in that it cannot pass the simplest of laws on its own account. I should like to correct the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who recruited Plaid Cymru into his party of people against having a referendum at all. We are in favour of having a referendum and would not support his point of view. Pre-legislative scrutiny has been commended as a way of looking at Orders in Council. Having taken part in that procedure, I have to say that it has been successful. For example, the Welsh Grand Committee has met to consider legislation and the Welsh Affairs Committee has met jointly with committees from the Welsh Assembly. However, it is significant that those joint meetings have on the whole concerned non-controversial matters. There is a danger that the procedure could be, to use the Secretary of State’s phrase, ““Redwoodised”” if there was a difference of opinion between the Government in Cardiff and the Government down here in London. That would also be a danger if we had a Secretary of State who is fundamentally at odds with the Welsh Assembly Government. The discussion process in respect of Orders in Council could go badly wrong. The 60-day delay might be used by an unsympathetic Secretary of State to slow down the process and entangle it in undue legal procedures in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) outlined. I refer the House to page 38 of the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report and to paragraph 131, in which, after consideration, the Committee, which is of course cross-party, would not recommend that the Secretary of State act as a filter. Another thing to draw to the attention of the House is the Salisbury convention, whereby if a matter is in a manifesto it is not opposed in certain circumstances. I asked the Secretary of State about that when he was giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee and I also asked the First Minister. Interestingly, the First Minister said that if the matter was in an Assembly manifesto it would not be opposed under the terms of the convention, but if it was a matter in the manifesto of one of the smaller parties, which had magically joined the other smaller parties, the issue would have to appear in each of the parties’ manifestos beforehand, which would of course create a difficulty for smaller parties. Rather more interestingly, the Salisbury convention is after all only a convention, so an individual Member, a Committee, the Welsh Assembly Government or the Welsh Assembly itself, with the approval of the Secretary of State and of this House, might commend an Order in Council but it might be refused down the corridor. Perhaps I am over-egging the pudding, but that might be so. I was therefore interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the Father of the House, who seemed to be commending the procedure and to be championing the cause of the other place, possibly in the face of the wishes of this place and of Cardiff. There has been a great deal of discussion about the proposed changes to the electoral system. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) made a significant point in saying that the evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee concerned the appearance of partisanship—that that is how it would be interpreted by people voting in elections in Wales. I will not go into the theology of proportional representation, but it is significant that it was the Government’s party that introduced the d’Hondt system that has led to the difficulties. Labour Back Benchers should not protest too much, because it was their Government who brought that in. The response of Glyn Mathias and the Electoral Commission was interesting. I refer Members to question 114 in the evidence. Glyn Mathias and the Electoral Commission, which is a properly independent body, said that there was no evidence in favour of change. However, when the Secretary of State and the First Minister appeared before us they asserted that there was great evidence and argument in favour of change. As far as I can see, they were assertions rather than evidence. Much has been made of international comparisons. One interesting comparison is the system that might have been adopted in Quebec, where additional members would be required to stand in seats, which would subject them to the rigours of proper competition face to face with another member in a constituency as well as standing for the list. I have great concerns about comments made by Labour Members on having two classes of Assembly Members. That is very dangerous and should be resisted as much as possible. I do not think that it would be possible to go down the Quebec route, but it is not a matter of one choice or another. We should look at this creatively so that the reputation of the electoral system in Wales is sustained and we get the best to represent the people of Wales in the Assembly. That is what this should be about; it should not be about real or imagined party advantage. I would like to ask other questions, but I will not detain the House, apart from referring to my earlier question about where list Members should locate their offices. Should they be banned from working in constituencies where they might subsequently stand?