Government of Wales Bill

My comments will be brief. I have three essential points, but I begin by pointing out that I have always believed that devolution is about partnership—between Cardiff and London and between the National Assembly for Wales and Westminster. That is the essence of the concept of devolution and it is certainly behind the Bill, which I hope will soon become an Act. The first of my three points is that we are taking a positive step forward when we talk about an end to the corporate status of the Assembly, and I am glad there is consensus behind that. If we cast our minds back and are honest, we realise that much of the thinking behind the vision of the Assembly in 1996 and 1997 was that it would be representative of inclusive politics in Wales; that all politicians would get together, sink their differences and push forward for a national goal. That was wrong. It was a myth and we have learned from it. We realise that if we are to have a proper legislative body, we must have a clearly defined Government accountable to the Assembly as a whole. That is fully recognised by all parties in the House and forms the basis of the Bill. We must also recognise that there will be consequences for the organisation of the Assembly. If we are not to have more Assembly Members—I am glad that we are not—Back-Bench AMs will have to take on greater responsibility for ensuring proper accountability and scrutiny. That is why, as the Presiding Officer has said, we need a review of the hours worked by the Assembly and there should be greater responsibility on the shoulders of Back Benchers. The second point that I want to make relates to the emotive issue of the changes proposed to the electoral system. I want to make it absolutely clear that I see no advantage for the Labour party in the changes proposed by the Government. It is interesting that Opposition Members have made no argument in favour of that assertion whatsoever. If the changes come about, they will enhance the Assembly’s credibility and introduce a fundamental moral fairness that simply says that losers cannot be winners as well. It is as simple as that. When we talk to people in the street about electoral systems—if we can engage them in that discussion—all those to whom I have spoken accept that basic, fundamental democratic premise. Scholarly work is not needed to analyse that; simply talk to ordinary people and they recognise the inherent fairness in the Government’s proposal. We must always listen to the people. That is the essence of democracy. The third and final point that I want to make relates to the Assembly’s powers. The proposal for Orders in Council is a sensible and pragmatic way forward. It is entirely in line with the partnership principle that I spoke about earlier. If we make that seismic shift towards having legislative powers, it is incumbent on us to say that the people should be consulted in a fully fledged referendum. With those three points, I very much hope that the Bill will be endorsed on Second Reading. It will be sensible and constructive legislation. It will take democracy and the Assembly forward, and it will help to create a better United Kingdom.