Government of Wales Bill: Second Reading

Speech by Lembit delivered to House of Commons on Wed 11th Jan 2006

"This Bill is flawed, patronising and limited. It fails to give Wales what it deserves- a proper law-making Senedd, just like the Scottish Parliament."

The first thing I want to do today, as is the fashion at the moment among young opposition MPs, is pay tribute to the Government- Labour deserve credit for grasping the nettle in 1998 and kick-starting the devolution process.

The bill they presented seven years ago, was a cautious one. It created a Welsh Assembly, but kept it firmly in hoc to the powers that be in Westminster.

Now, seven years later, the Government have a mandate to give Wales the deal it deserves- an Assembly with primary powers. Polls suggest the Welsh public supports such a move, and all but one of the major parties would fully support moves towards primary powers.

The Richard Commission set out a clear path for a proper devolution settlement. Having surveyed all the issues in unique detail, Lord Richard and his colleagues concluded that the best way forward for Wales was the following:

An 80-member Assembly, elected by a Single Transferable Vote system, to an Assembly with primary law-making powers.

This is the model the Welsh Liberal Democrats want to see put in place. It's a model that would create a powerful and professional Welsh Senedd; a proportional, political body with the responsibilities and capacity to move Wales forward.

Unfortunately, the the bill we are discussing today comes nowhere near what Lord Richard advocated and what the Welsh liberal Democrats, and the majority of the people of Wales, want.

In its current form the bill is flawed, patronising and limited. It's main problem, is that it concentrates great power in the figure of the Secretary of State for Wales, and in doing so could to thrust the devolution process into complete limbo for decades.

Under this bill the Assembly would only have greater powers if the Secretary of State allows it. Every time the Assembly wants authority over a policy area they have to go, cap in hand, to the Secretary of State. He can turn them down for any reason he wants. If the Secretary of State gets out of the wrong side of bed in the morning, and decides he's not keen on what the Assembly want to do, he can stop the Assembly in its tracks.

This is not the federal option, it's the colonial option. The Secretary of State for Wales will act like a Viceroy in a distant colony, allowing his subjects to make decisions, if and when it chooses him.

While the Government was willing to give these powers to the Scots seven years ago, they are still patronising Wales and offering the nation very limited political powers. The Welsh Liberal Democrats believe the Assembly should have proper autonomy, and its aspirations shouldn't be subject to the whim of the Secretary of State.

The Welsh Affairs Committee were unequivocal when it came to this: they concluded that "the Secretary of State's powers should be limited to refusing Orders in Council on the basis of procedure, not on the merits of policy aspiration."

And it's the same story when it comes to the referendum on primary powers. The Government tell us this bill offers a fast track to primary powers. Fast track suggests Michael Schumacher in a Ferrari. This bill's more like Vera Duckworth on a unicycle.

Lord Richard called the Government of Wales bill a "tortuous route to primary powers." The reality is worse than this- We might never get there. This bill could leave Wales lost forever in Spaghetti junction.

If an anti-devolution party were to come to power in Westminster they could halt the devolution process indefinitely. Under this bill you could have a scenario where 90% of the Welsh public wanted primary powers in Cardiff, where 90% of the Assembly wanted primary powers in Cardiff, and the Secretary of State of the day could simply say, 'No'.

This bill was meant to tip the balance of power from Westminster to Cardiff. Instead it strengthens the Secretary of State's grip over the Assembly. On Orders in Council, on primary powers, on future referenda, the Secretary of State holds all the aces. And the Welsh Assembly has to pull off a five card trick if its wants to get anywhere at all.

If Labour really are a pro-devolution party, then why present us with this half-baked, convoluted bill, riddled with caveats and clauses that could threaten the whole devolution project?

The impression given is that this bill is a compromise. It seems as though the Labour Government has conceded considerable ground to the anti-devolution elements within their own ranks. This bill does seem far more beneficial to the internal harmony of the Labour party than to the political progress of Wales.

This seems transparently the case in the issue of dual candidacy, which has attracted almost as much attention and controversy as the leadership of my party.

I'm sure this will be discussed at length later. While I don't feel that Labour's policy of banning dual candidacy puts our Secretary of State on quite the same moral level as Robert Mugabe… I do think there is very little evidence to support their proposals.

Academics and non-partisan organisations such as the Electoral Reform Society and the Electoral Commission have all condemned the Government's proposals. They have found no evidence that dual candidacy, in the words of the Secretary of State, "devalues the integrity of the electoral system", or "acts as a disincentive to vote in constituency elections."

The Electoral Reform Society called the government's stance, "a controversial and divisive argument for which the case has not adequately been made." We agree, and will be seeking to overturn this element of the bill at Committee stage.

But the main issue with this Bill is devolution, and the extent of the powers available to the Welsh Assembly.

We have a historic opportunity here to give Wales what it deserves- a proper law-making Senedd, just like the Scottish Parliament. If Labour had followed the path set out by the Richard Commission, they would have had our full support. But they have categorically failed to do this.

What Wales needs is a bill which settles the devolution story by offering a clear direction across the board on the major issues we're faced with. Instead of a bold vision, we've a blurred vision.

Take finance- what a great opportunity this is to finally end the injustice of the Barnett Formula, and replace it with a funding system that takes account of what Wales needs! Instead we're muddling on with a funding formula so outdated even its creator thinks it should be abolished!

These are the kind of bold decisions that Labour is shying away from, with the timid and hesitant bill we have in front of us.

I'll be frank: the deeply flawed nature of this bill has left us, as a pro-devolution party, with a dilemma. The bill in its current form is unacceptable. However, with major amendments it could provide the devolution settlement that Wales so richly deserves.

So today, we will support this bill at Second Reading, because we want devolution to work, and because we want to give the Government a chance to make this bill work.

The Conservative's reasoned amendment seems intended to stall the devolution process. The Tories would like a referendum every time the First Minister ties his shoelaces. They hope that by stalling consistently the devolution project will eventually run out of steam.

We will be voting against the Conservative's reasoned amendment, which we view as an anti-devolution proposal from an anti-devolution party.

Overall, we have major reservations about this bill, and major amendments to put forward at Committee stage. If these amendments are taken onboard, we will vote for this bill to become law. If they aren't, we'll find it very difficult to back a bill which could potentially set back the devolution process for twenty or thirty years.