Before I begin I want to place on the record the group’s thanks to the joint secretariat—Marie Knox and Adrian Crompton on behalf of the Presiding Office, and Bryan Mitchell and Steve Pomeroy on behalf of the Executive. Without their help, this report would not be before us this morning.

The report has been a long time in coming. The First Minister mentioned a review in Plenary in July 2000. It took months before we could arrange the first meeting, which we eventually held in December 2000. Since then, we have met every month. Besides formal meetings, we have had three out-of-committee meetings where we dispensed with the services of officials to get down to some hard bargaining to obtain the agreements that would have taken much longer if the cameras had been on us. The group comprised the four party leaders, the four party business managers, the Presiding Officer and myself. We consulted widely. We consulted staff, individual Assembly Members, partnership councils and Regional Committees, business representatives, academics and legal experts. The Legislation Committee submitted evidence, as did the Panel of Chairs. The report is now before us for approval. Except where indicated, it is an agreed report. All the recommendations are agreed by the four party leaders, the four business managers, the Presiding Officer and myself.

This is the first time that the Assembly has been able to examine its proceedings and procedures. We were given a set of Standing Orders by the National Assembly Advisory Group, which considered them before the Assembly’s establishment. We have changed Standing Orders here and there, and looked at proceedings on an ad hoc basis. This is the first time that we have been able to evaluate our procedures. There are nearly 40 recommendations before you this morning. I emphasise again that the four party leaders and the four party business managers all agree on the recommendations.

There are four key themes in this report. First is the question of separating the legislature and executive parts of the National Assembly for Wales. It is clear that, as we are a corporate body, this is difficult. However, we now have guidelines for those in the Executive and the Presiding Office to look to, which allow them to differentiate our functions. The Presiding Office, of course, represents every individual Assembly Member without fear or favour. We would not say anything to any Member that we would not say to any other Member in the same circumstances. The Executive is different; it carries out the process of government, but that process must be distinct from those of the legislature.

The second key theme is protecting the rights of all Members. It is not just a question of the Executive having its way. The Executive will have its way if it commands a majority in Plenary. However, Members must have the right to hold the Executive to account, to scrutinise its actions, and to help to formulate policy through the Subject Committees. That runs into the third key theme, which is, how can we develop scrutiny and policy development?

The fourth key theme is the consideration of legislation. How can we best examine Westminster and European Union legislation and keep up to date with the two legislatures so that we can shape our own legislation in good time and can influence them both? We would all agree that that has not been one of our strong points so far. That is not because we have failed as Members, but because of our powers and the way in which they were transferred to us in the Government of Wales Act 1998.

I agree that there was some debate. We did not agree on everything. We did not agree on nomenclature, for example. Was it to be the ‘Government of Wales’ or the ‘Government for the National Assembly’? We were eventually pre-empted by the Government’s announcement that it would be ‘Welsh Assembly Government’. We did not agree on the Regional Committees’ boundaries. All that is ahead of us, and will be decided by vote in Plenary. We did not agree on how to handle Government’s responses to Committee reports. We could not agree on whether we should re-institute the vote on the short debate in some form. However, those disagreements are few compared to the points of agreement. Of those agreements and recommendations, the treatment of legislation, scrutiny and the National Assembly of Wales’s ability to influence primary legislation at Westminster and the European Union are the most important. There are problems with us doing that at present. As Members know, every time the Westminster Parliament enacts a new Bill that repeals legislation in previous Acts, any subsidiary powers in those repealed pieces of primary legislation cease and we lose powers unless they are re-enacted in the new legislation passed in Westminster.

The Westminster Parliament operates differently to us. It is not inclusive. There is a culture of secrecy at Westminster. Ministers of either party will generally produce Bills and proposals for legislation at Westminster and Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords will know nothing about them until they are formally laid on the Table of the House for first reading. We do not do that. We have a different system here of Subject Committees, policy development, and including all Members in the process. However, the Westminster Parliament has a rubber-stamp nature. That makes it difficult for us to know what primary legislation is being placed before Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It makes it difficult for us to act quickly to influence any of this legislation before it becomes set in the form of a Bill. Once it is set in the form of a Bill, it is extremely difficult for Ministers to make changes as that Bill proceeds through the Houses of Parliament.

Thirdly, there is the question of European Union legislation, which is entirely different. The European Union is far more inclusive, but we must seize the opportunity to discover what the European Union directives contain, to be able to understand them and exert some influence there. The opportunity is there if we can get the information. That is a problem different to that which faces us as far as Westminster is concerned.

Westminster Cabinet Ministers have been saying—and they are muddled about this—that the National Assembly will not have Henry VIII powers, but in the Education Bill there was a tranche of Henry VIII powers in relation to the curriculum. I regard that as good, because it is clear that Westminster is not ad idem with itself over what should happen here. Some Government Ministers say that devolution is an event. It is patently not an event; it is a process, and we are taking another step in that process today by reviewing our own procedures. That process will continue through the Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House Commons, Robin Cook, who has already visited the Assembly, and will have further discussions with Assembly Members. Eventually we will have the commission on the powers of the National Assembly for Wales, and that will also continue the process. Therefore, let us not misunderstand: devolution is a process, and we are undergoing part of that process today. We have accepted—

One part of the process that was originally envisaged was that draft Bills would be published, and would then come to the Assembly for consideration and amendment, before progressing further in the legislative process in Parliament. The problem with draft Bills is that they would have to be discrete Welsh Bills, such as that on the restructuring of the NHS, which would then create, for the first time in Britain’s constitutional history, discrete English Bills. The Government seems to have run a million miles from setting that precedent.

Cynigiaf welliant 3. Ychwanegu ar ddiwedd pwynt 1:

Cynigiaf welliant 5. Ar ddiwedd pwynt 2, ychwanegu:

Ychwanegu ar ddiwedd pwynt 3 ‘fel y’u diwygiwyd’.

Cynigiaf welliant 11. Ychwanegu pwynt 4 newydd:

Gan fod amser yn brin, af drwy’r adroddiad yn gyflym gan fod gennym nifer o wellianau ac yr wyf am danlinellu rhai pwyntiau pwysig a ddaw o’r adroddiad.

Yn gyntaf, diolchaf i’r Dirprwy Lywydd am y modd y cyflwynodd yr adroddiad a’r modd y mae yntau a’r Llywydd wedi cadeirio Pwyllgor Adolygu Gweithdrefn y Cynulliad. Mae hynny wedi gwneud ein gwaith yn gymaint haws. Hoffwn ddiolch hefyd i bawb a gymerodd ran yn y broses ac i’r swyddogion am helpu i baratoi’r adroddiad sy’n sail i’n trafodaeth heddiw.

Y mae’n rhaid inni nodi i gychwyn y byddem wedi dymuno i’r adolygiad hwn fod yn llawer ehangach, ac iddo ystyried pam nad oes gennym bwerau deddfwriaethol. Dim ond pan gaiff y Cynulliad bwerau deddfwriaethol y gallwn fynd i’r afael â’r problemau sy’n wynebu pobl Cymru. Wythnos ar ôl wythnos, fis ar ôl mis, a blwyddyn ar ôl blwyddyn, gwelwn pa mor wan yw pwerau presennol y Cynulliad. Gwelsom hynny yn ystod argyfwng clwy’r traed a genau. Fodd bynnag, yr ydym yn derbyn y cynhaliwyd yr adolygiad hwn yng ngyd-destun y ddeddfwriaeth bresennol. O ganlyniad, y mae rhai o’r newidiadau yn weddol gosmetig ac eraill yn ymddangos yn arwynebol, ond cafodd rhai materion pwysig eu cynnwys yn yr adroddiad. Cyfeiriwn at rai materion yn ein gwellianau hefyd.

Sylwaf y cyfeiriodd y Dirprwy Lywydd at bedair prif thema’r adroddiad. Fel mab i weinidog Ymneilltuol, dywedaf mai tair thema sydd. Yn gyntaf, yr ydym wedi sicrhau bod bwlch clir rhwng y Llywodraeth a’r Cynulliad, sy’n bwysig. Mae hefyd yn bwysig gwthio hynny cyn belled ag y bo modd o fewn y rheolau presennol.

Yn ail, yr ydym am wneud ein gwaith yn fwy effeithiol mewn Cyfarfodydd Llawn a Phwyllgorau. Mae hyn hefyd yn ymwneud â’r wybodaeth a gawn er mwyn gwneud ein gwaith. Yr ydym hefyd yn ystyried rôl Pwyllgorau. Rhaid i ni ei gwneud yn glir bod dwy rôl bendant iddynt, sef craffu a datblygu polisi. Yr ydym am i’r adroddiad hwn sicrhau y caiff y ddwy rôl hyn eu gwahanu’n glir.

Mae Plaid Cymru yn anghytuno â gweddill y Pwyllgor ynglŷn ag ymwneud Gweindiogion â gwaith Pwyllgor. Byddem wedi dymuno peidio â gweld Gweinidogion yn rhan o’r broses datblygu polisi oherwydd, ar hyn o bryd, mae’r Gweinidog yn rhan o’r consensws sy’n sail i adroddiadau, ond wedyn gallant benderfynu pa ran o’r adroddiad y maent am ei weithredu. Mae hynny yn llesteirio gwaith y Pwyllgor. Fodd bynnag, mae hyn yn fater i’w drafod eto, mae’n debyg.

I wish to discuss some key issues that arise from the report. First, the principle has been established that we should ensure the clearest possible separation between the Government and the National Assembly. That theme runs through the report. That is an important issue for us. We know of the row regarding the name that the Government has adopted for itself. I do not want to spend too much time on that issue again, other than to say that I believe that it was the wrong decision. Choosing the name ‘Welsh Assembly Government’ is a mistake and the First Minister should have realised that it would cause trouble. Unfortunately, that name has now been confirmed and that is why we have proposed amendment 5, stating that the Government should adopt the name ‘Government for Wales’.

We may not be able to agree on the issue of the timing of debates today. The issue will not go away. We must consider it carefully and be flexible regarding that.

I welcome the way in which questions to the First Minister, which are currently tabled, will change. It will be much easier to raise more topical issues if this report is adopted. I hope that the new rules will make the situation easier and give us the opportunity to question the First Minister more sensibly.

Apart from the issue of separating the Assembly and the Government, we have made the most progress on the issue of primary legislation. There is no doubt that we do not do justice to the issue of primary legislation because currently, powers can be taken away from, and given to the Assembly. We are not part of the process that leads to the framing of legislation. That is why Professor Richard Rawlings’ principles are important. I hope that the Government will not only take those on board, but will ensure that the Whitehall departments that are currently working against the interests of devolution really understand how they should be done.

The issue of Subject Committees has been clarified. We welcome the fact that there will be more resources for Subject Committees and I hope that, once the new staff are in place, we will have independent Committees.

As time is short, I will run briefly through our amendments 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 tabled in the name of Jocelyn Davies. Amendment 4 is on the issue—

We would like the separation of the Assembly from the Government to be endorsed by a vote. We should have the ‘Government of Wales’. We should debate ministerial reports rather than have statements and we also believe that the only way to achieve real change in the Assembly is through full legislative powers. We will support the Government’s amendment 10. We will allow a free vote on two of the Conservative amendments, but we will support the others.

I propose amendment 6. At the end of point 2, add:

I propose amendment 7. At the end of point 2, add:

I propose amendment 8. At the end of point 2, add:

I propose amendment 9. At the end of point 2, add:

I reiterate John Marek and Ieuan Wyn Jones’s thanks to the staff who helped in this process. I also reiterate the thanks for the hard work that you, Llywydd, and John Marek put in. That helped us in reaching the agreed recommendations.

This is the first opportunity that the National Assembly has had to examine its processes since its establishment. This is, in many ways, reviewing the work done on the National Assembly Advisory Group. In passing, it is disappointing that the First Minister is not here for this. This involves some serious issues and, though I understood his absence from some of the group’s meetings due to the pressure of business, when these issues are being discussed in Plenary, it is important that he should attend. [Interruption.] I understand that he is now on his way.

There are many helpful recommendations, and I will briefly go through those. However, I will also highlight some areas where there was disagreement, on which there is a vote and on which there are important issues to be settled. My party will also have a free vote on this. This is important for all of the amendments because these matters relate to the work of Assembly Members. I hope that other parties will adopt that philosophy.

One key issue is the link with Westminster. It is important that we see Bills in draft form. I am glad that the Minister for Assembly Business was able to welcome and support the Secretary of State or the Under Secretary, who would liaise with Committees. That nexus or link with Westminster has not worked as well as it might have so far, but the recommendation would be helpful.

Another key issue is help for Assembly Members. Points were made earlier about the backbenchers’ role. That is underplayed in a small body such as this and we seem to forget that there are many who do not serve as Ministers or party leaders. One key aspect, therefore, is the influence on Committees and the fact that, according to the Government view, there should be no Government response in terms of a debate to a Committee report. It is vital that we have a debate rather than a statement. If it is a statement, then the strength of the whips will ensure that it passes unchallenged. If there is a debate then there will be a motion that is subject to challenge and that will ensure that all 60 Members have a greater input in the evolution of policy. That is a key issue.

We are pleased by the increase in resources in terms of the experts to work alongside the Committees. I strongly feel that we need a vote at the end of the short debate. I was against the withdrawal of the vote when that was voted through.

We will have a free vote on that amendment. However, had you proposed that the short debate should have a ‘take note’ motion, it would have been much easier for us to support that amendment.

It is certainly inherent, as you know from e-mails exchanged between us on the Committees, that I believe that that is the way forward. I accept the Government’s case for not wanting votes that would bind it; there could be contradictory votes in successive weeks. I accept that point and assure you that it is inherent in our proposals that it would not bind the Government. That is clear and important.

In terms of the running of the Assembly, there are some key features in the report. I am glad about the relaxation of or flexibility on the family-friendly hours. It gives us some additional flexibility. I think that the people of Wales will welcome that because it shows that we are determined to make the Assembly work. Although I have indicated that it is for my own Members to decide how they will vote, I am not able to support Plaid’s amendment 4—I suspect that it is the Llanelli amendment—which suggests that the extension to 7 p.m. only be used for important Government business. That is inherent, so I do not see that that amendment is necessary.

On Regional Committee boundaries, there are probably almost as many views as there are Members. It is a difficult question and it was a difficult question for the National Assembly Advisory Group. It is not only difficult for regional list Members, although it probably hits them hardest; there are some who are on two Regional Committees and who could potentially be on three. However, I understand that, in some circumstances, there will be some constituency Members, such as the Presiding Officer, who would find themselves on two Regional Committees. That must be wrong in terms of workload and, therefore, I believe that the Regional Committee boundaries should reflect the electoral area boundaries.

One issue that has been much addressed and is not important, in a sense—but in another sense it is—is the nomenclature. It is important that we have a clear division between the Executive here and the legislature, in terms of secondary legislation. I cannot understand why it was necessary to pre-empt the review body’s discussions, as happened with the issue of the title ‘the Government of Wales’. After all, we have the Government of Wales Act 1998, and nobody is seriously suggesting that the Government of Wales is situated in Westminster, so I do not understand why we cannot have ‘the Government of Wales’ as a title.

Lastly, we feel that it would be desirable if we had a printed record of what happens in the Assembly, in addition to the electronic record. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Westminster and Europe have that hard-copy record.

We commend these amendments.

I join other Members in thanking staff and colleagues for their work on the Assembly review, and particularly your work, Presiding Officer, and the Deputy Presiding Officer’s work, in chairing and leading the review. The Deputy Presiding Officer has set out the review’s main conclusions and recommendations well. I largely agree with his four themes. As a member of the review group, I will add some remarks. I do so as a Member who attended every meeting, although I was late on one famous occasion.

The review has been a painstaking exercise, although it has not been painful. On the whole it was enjoyable, and was done in a collegiate way. We have not suggested radical or fundamental changes. Much that we do already works well and is innovative, particularly the work of Subject Committees. Robin Cook, the Leader of the House of Commons, remarked upon that in his visit last week. That work is widely respected in Wales and beyond. However, that same spirit of innovation must lead us to reflect on what we do, and to act properly and accordingly.

Many of our recommendations seek to clarify and formalise de facto practices and approaches. That is true, for example, of some of our proposals on subordinate legislation, where we recommend clearer and more regular flows of information. On other issues we were concerned to maximise the role of backbench Assembly Members. I know that Peter Law will make that point later. That will be done, for example, by liberalising the rules on questions, particularly to the First Minister—I know that he wants that to proceed—as well as my proposal for increasing the opportunities for Members to offer their own proposals for subordinate legislation. That is one of the most radical recommendations that we are making.

These recommendations may not be front-page news, but that does not mean that they are unimportant. Most points have already been made, but I will clarify one point. I must qualify what the report states concerning what David Melding referred to regarding the publication of Bills in draft and their scrutiny by the Assembly. There is a strong and growing view that so-called pre-legislative scrutiny needs to be much more widely used. The Government welcomes that. It would allow a wider range of influences on primary legislation, over a longer period, and we feel it would lead to better scrutiny, better law and therefore better legislation. The Leader of the House of Commons has publicly backed that view; a view that I, and I am sure most Members here, would endorse. He said that to me when I met him last Tuesday when he visited the Assembly at my invitation.

However, it is a folly to imagine that, as the report states, all Bills affecting Wales could be published in draft form, let alone be effectively scrutinised by the Assembly. Nearly every Bill during its passage through Westminster affects Wales in some way or other. For example, in the current parliamentary session, there will probably be around 40 Government Bills. Only two, which relate solely to Northern Ireland, will not affect Wales. Scrutinising those Bills is a full-time job for the House of Commons, which has 659 Members. How the Assembly, which has 60 Members, could manage that alongside all its other work, which includes scrutinising our own subordinate legislation is, I think, beyond most Members and me. We need rather to focus our efforts on those Bills that affect us most. We need to prioritise—as we do with our subordinate legislation—those instances where we propose, and others where we make separate and different provision for Wales.

On amendment 10, I do not want to undermine the consensus that underpins the report, but simply to make it clear that we seek to maximise the effectiveness of the Assembly, whether in Committee or in Plenary, and to direct our resources where they will have the greatest and most useful impact. That is what this review has sought to do across the piste and I would urge the Assembly to support amendment 10 in that spirit.

I also want to indicate my support for amendments 1 and 3 in the name of Jocelyn Davies. It is appropriate at this stage that we note the report. Members will want to give further consideration to these issues should they result in proposals to change Standing Orders, as many of them will. Many Members will not want to commit themselves to changes to Plenary business hours today. I also welcome amendment 3, which allows the Assembly to formally recognise the separation between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Assembly, as a legislature, in how we do our business. This amendment will help us to explain to the people of Wales the distinction between the Assembly and the Government, and improve the accountability of the institutions that are part of the Assembly. It will also allow us to clarify that most of officials’ work is undertaken on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government. The other amendments either raise matters that are outside the review’s terms of reference, or they return to matters that did not have substantial support within the review group. That is why I recommend that they should not be supported.

I will speak to amendment 10 in the name of Andrew Davies. We must recognise that Assembly resources are scarce in terms of time, people and money. We must concentrate resources to the best effect. Amendment 10 is therefore sensible. My only reservation is that I am not sure how practical it would be. David Melding made a good point when he said that most legislation is England and Wales legislation. We will not set a precedent for Parliament by having legislation and examining it in draft form before it is presented to Parliament. It is worth reflecting that, since the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales, we have not had a piece of legislation that is Wales only. To pretend or delude ourselves that we will have a whole host of draft Bills to examine is unrealistic. Nevertheless, we must concentrate on where we can have the best effect, and I certainly accept that.

I am slightly disappointed by the report, although I broadly welcome its recommendations. The report is modest, although, given the fact that it was a consensual process, we would inevitably emerge with the lowest common denominator, which we must accept. I hope that, somehow or other, the process will continue and perhaps the review group—if it continues to meet—will deal with some of the more difficult and contentious issues.

I will now deal with one issue that the review group has touched on, but which will have considerable implications for how the National Assembly operates, namely how we deal with legislation. I convey my warm thanks to the chief whip because for some reason I have managed to retain my position on the Legislation Committee, which deals with secondary legislation. Within the Labour Group, there is such a long queue of people for that Committee that positions on it are rationed. Some of my colleagues are limited to a maximum of six weeks’ stay. However, because of the chief whip’s generosity, I have managed to retain my place on that Committee. I looked this morning at the minutes of the Committee’s proceedings last month, when it debated Christmas turkeys. It was a fascinating debate on the Agricultural Holdings (Units of Production) (Wales) (No. 2) Order 2001 and the Agricultural Holdings (Units of Production) (Wales) (No. 3) Order 2001. The minutes record the discussion on the schedule as follows:

‘The Schedule contained a reference to “Christmas turkeys” in the English text but the Welsh text referred only to “turkeys”. Assuming there was significance in the particular specification of “Christmas” turkeys, there was inconsistency between the English and Welsh texts. A query was raised whether frozen turkeys would come under the intended term…The Minister’s letter explained why the terminology had changed as between successive orders but did not address the discrepancy which existed within the present order between the English and Welsh texts. Nevertheless it was clear from what the Minister said that there was significance in the particular specification of “Christmas” turkeys. Accordingly, the Committee is obliged to invite the Assembly to pay special attention as there is inconsistency between the English and Welsh texts.’

That was an interesting discussion, and I am grateful to the lawyers who assisted our deliberations. Even I, devo-enthusiast that I am, would not argue that this debate went right to the heart of Government policy-making. We have dealt with over 200 Orders in the Legislation Committee, only two of which have had their policy content examined by the National Assembly’s Subject Committees. That is an issue that must be addressed. There is considerable opportunity for us to consider beforehand the policy debates informing the host of secondary legislation emanating from Government. That point has been accepted, and I welcome the fact that Committees are now starting to look at the policy origins of Orders.

Finally, on primary legislation, the present arrangements are completely unsatisfactory; I take the Education Bill currently before the House of Commons as an example. It has over 30 clauses with substantial implications for Wales, which deal with the curriculum, the place of the Welsh language, faith schools, funding and local government arrangements, private sector involvement and the provision of special needs education. These matters are contained in the clauses of the Bill that relate to Wales. However, no reference was made to these matters during the second reading of the Bill, and they have not been debated in Plenary or by the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee. A protocol exists between the National Assembly Government and the UK Government that prevents us from examining discussions between the National Assembly and the Department for Education and Skills on the contents of the Bill. Therefore we do not know whether the Bill reflects the views originally expressed by the Assembly Government or whether the views of DfES prevailed. We are prevented from having that debate.

When reading the official report of the Bill’s second reading, I was amazed to discover that ‘The Learning Country’, which, effectively, informs Assembly policy, has no legitimacy or status in Parliament, which is contrary to parliamentary procedure. You will know, Llywydd, that, when debating in Parliament, you need to know the White Paper that provides the policy content. However, our White Paper was not available. I am concerned that, unless we can scrutinise and examine the policy content that we ask Westminster to deliver, we will put Wales at a disadvantage when it is debated in Parliament. Our deficiency will invite those in Westminster who are hostile to our intentions, to use the fact that we have not debated these matters to undermine the process of legislation in Westminster. We must address that, and I hope that we will make improvements in that regard in future.

Yn dilyn sylwadau diddorol Ron Davies ar ddeddfwriaeth, yr wyf am ganolbwyntio ar y Pwyllgorau Pwnc. Croesawaf gefnogaeth yr adroddiad i argymhellion Richard Rawlings ar ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol. Efe a ddisgrifiodd y setliad presennol fel rysáit ar gyfer cymhlethdod a chawdel. Mae ei argymhellion yn ymdrech i roi rhywfaint o drefn ar y cymhlethdod hwnnw. Bydd ymateb Llywodraeth San Steffan i’r argymhellion yn brawf pwysig ar ei hagwedd at ddatganoli. Gobeithiaf y cawn gyfle i glywed ei hymateb cyn hir. Os bydd yr ymateb yn gadarnhaol, ac egwyddorion Rawlings yn cael eu gweithredu, bydd hynny’n golygu datblygu rôl ddeddfwriaethol y Pwyllgorau mewn ffordd bwysig. Bydd angen i’r Pwyllgorau roi amser sylweddol i’r gwaith, a golyga hynny y bydd yn amser ar draul peth o’r gwaith sydd yn cael ei wneud yn y Pwyllgorau ar hyn o bryd.

Croesawaf yr alwad ym mharagraff 6.20 o’r adroddiad, am fwy o adnoddau dynol arbenigol i’r Pwyllgorau. Mae’n hanfodol bod yr adnoddau dynol hynny yn cael eu rhoi yn eu lle er mwyn i’r Pwyllgorau wneud y gwaith pwysig hwn. Cefnogaf bwynt III o welliant 5 Jocelyn Davies, sydd yn galw am sefydlu uned ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol o fewn Swyddfa’r Llywydd. Gwn nad yw hynny yn yr adroddiad, ond bydd angen yr arbenigedd hwnnw.

Rhagwelaf y bydd cyfle pwysig i’r Pwyllgorau ymwneud â deddfwriaeth drwy wneud rhai o’r pethau y cyfeiriodd Ron Davies atynt eisoes, sef cyfrannu at ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol. Rhaid i Bwyllgorau allu delio â’r cynseiliau polisi sydd yn arwain at ddeddfwriaeth, gwneud argymhellion ar gyfer deddfwriaeth sylfaenol, ac wedyn delio ag is-ddeddfwriaeth yn fanwl cyn i’r ddeddfwriaeth honno ddod i’r Cyfarfod Llawn. O weithredu’r egwyddorion hynny, fel yn y Mesur Addysg newydd, bydd yn waith sylweddol a manwl i’r Pwyllgorau. Yn yr achos hwn, nid yw hi’n amhriodol bod cydweithio’n digwydd rhwng y Gweinidog a’r gwasanaeth sifil mewn perthynas â deddfwriaeth o’r fath, cyhyd â bod gan y Pwyllgorau eu hadnoddau annibynnol eu hunain.

Trafodaf annibyniaeth y Pwyllgorau. Mae hynny’n hollbwysig mewn perthynas â dwy rôl arall y Pwyllgorau, sef craffu a datblygu polisi. Cefnogaf welliant 3 Jocelyn Davies—ac yr wyf yn falch bod Andrew Davies hefyd yn ei gefnogi—ynglŷn â chael y rhaniad cliriaf posibl rhwng y Llywodraeth a’r Cynulliad. Mae rôl y Gweinidog o fewn y Pwyllgor yn broblem yma. Mae’n anodd i’r Pwyllgor graffu ar waith Gweinidog tra bod y Gweinidog yn eistedd fel aelod o’r Pwyllgor. Dylai staff y Pwyllgor baratoi brîff i’r Aelodau i’w harfogi i fynd i’r gad yn effeithiol wrth archwilio gwaith y Gweinidog. Fodd bynnag, fel ag y mae, byddai’r Gweinidog yn derbyn copi o’r brîff hwnnw a fyddai’n tanseilio effeithiolrwydd y broses.

Mae Deddf Llywodraeth Cymru 1998 yn mynnu bod y Gweinidog yn aelod o’r Pwyllgor. Fodd bynnag, dylid gwneud trefniant anffurfiol fel ei fod ef neu hi yn ymwahanu oddi wrth y Pwyllgor yn llwyr i’r pwrpas hwn, gyda phrotocol yn gosod trefniant felly ar bapur. Dylai’r un peth fod yn wir ar gyfer adolygiadau polisi, sydd yn rôl bwysig a ffrwythlon. Tra bo Gweinidogion yn aelodau o’r Pwyllgorau, mae perygl iddynt a’u swyddogion ddylanwadu ar gynnwys adroddiad er cyfleustra’r Llywodraeth ac i hyrwyddo’u hagendâu eu hunain. Nid wyf yn sôn am unrhyw Weinidog penodol. Yr wyf yn sôn yn gyffredinol am y perygl hwnnw.

Nid yw’n gwneud synnwyr bod y Gweinidog ar y naill law yn arddel argymhellion adroddiad y Pwyllgor fel aelod o’r Pwyllgor, ac ar y llaw arall, yn rhydd i wrthod rhai o’r argymhellion hynny yn nes ymlaen. Cyn dyddiau’r glymblaid, yr oedd y fargen a oedd yn cael ei tharo yn y Pwyllgor yn benderfyniad polisi i bob pwrpas. Felly yr oedd yn nyddiau’r arolwg ar addysg dros 16, er enghraifft. Nid yw felly yn awr pan fo Llywodraeth fwyafrifol dros bawb. Dylai’r Gweinidog gamu i’r naill ochr o’r Pwyllgor yn ystod adolygiad polisi. Nid oes rheswm pam na allai’r Gweinidog fod yn bresennol i wrando ar y dystiolaeth ac i ddilyn y gweithgareddau. Fodd bynnag, ni ddylai’r Gweinidog fod yn rhan o’r broses o lunio’r adroddiad.

Dylai fod dadl lawn, ac nid datganiad yn unig ar ymateb y Gweinidog i adroddiad y Pwyllgor pan gyhoeddir ef. Dywedaf air ynglŷn ag ymddygiad Aelodau mewn Pwyllgor. Teimlaf weithiau eu bod yn cael trafferth i wahaniaethu rhwng gwahanol fathau o weithgareddau. Mae adegau ar gyfer dadlau ac anghytuno mewn Pwyllgor—yn finiog os oes angen, ond bob amser yn gwrtais, gobeithio. Mae adegau eraill i wrando ac i’r Pwyllgor weithredu fel tîm wrth holi’r tystion: i hela fel pac ac osgoi’r cecru rhyngbleidiol. Byddai gweithgareddau’r Pwyllgorau yn ennill parch pe bai aelodau yn ceisio deall y gwahaniaeth rhwng y ddau fath o weithgaredd. Fodd bynnag, mater o ddiwylliant a thraddodiad yw hynny, nid rheolau.

The Liberal Democrats thank the officials and Members who have contributed to this process. Those of us who have been in this building late at night will have been surprised to receive e-mails with yet another draft of the proposals. The staff of the Presiding Office and Cabinet Secretariat have worked hard to draft this material in an agreed format. I also thank you, Presiding Officer, and the Deputy Presiding Officer for the way in which you have developed this review.

The principle message that emerges from the report, and from our debate today, concerns the role of Subject Committees, and legislation. Both have raised unanswered questions about the future, and we will need to return to those matters. We may need to continue to review our procedures in some way in the future, to address the issues that will emerge as we proceed with these changes. I hope that a review of the whole of the legislative process and the Committee structures comes out of this, but that it will not focus too much on how long we sit, because I think that that could give the wrong impression to the public. However, I hope that the report’s recommendations will be carried through.

I pay tribute, in particular, to several measures concerning the legislative process. I agree with Ron that we must prioritise and consider what comes our way in a mixed bag from Westminster. This report tries to promote, here and in Westminster, the good parliamentary practice of draft Bills. If that is developed, we will have an opportunity to undertake the work we want to do here in that prioritising process. It is important that the Subject Committees do more in the way of scrutinising legislation. Ron gave the example of Christmas turkeys, but I also draw his attention to the Egyptian potatoes and the mink farms, of which we have none in Wales, but on which we pass legislation, as I understand it, every year. However, there are matters covered by subordinate legislation that we have not developed properly, such as prescription charges, and eye and dental checks legislation. These were important policy issues, and we need to be more careful about how we work with them.

I also thank Andrew Davies for what I loosely call the Andrew Davies measures in this report, about enabling every Assembly Member to bring forward subordinate legislation. We need to educate the civic society around the Assembly that there is an opportunity to change things with subordinate legislation—which has been used with eye and dental checks and prescription charges—in a way that could influence policy. Hopefully, more Bills and legislation will come through that mechanism to assist Assembly Members in that process.

I note Nick’s comments about the short debate; I also support this measure. Paragraph 3.18 of the report makes it clear that we are talking about a take-note motion because we understand that you might not want to compel Government in a short debate. Taking note has some form of power behind it, and I encourage people to support that aspect.

On the Regional Committee boundaries, there is a free vote on that amendment because I do not think that we will agree on that. The paper before us produces four models, there could be more, and all will probably be unhelpful to us. However, we will support amendments 1, 3 and 10 because we believe that they are important.

There are issues that have not been fully addressed. On the role of Subject Committees, Cynog’s interesting response leads us down the inevitable route of full scrutiny committees, with no policy-making role. I do not agree with his view of removing the Minister from the Committee, as that would not allow the Committee the distinctive role it has at present. The Assembly must try to find a route that is different from that of Westminster. We should have that hybrid role for Subject Committees with a policy-making role. Separating that out would only send us down the route of having a scrutiny committee. One of the Assembly’s strengths is that Committees have had a strong policy-making role, which allows matters to be brought out in the open much more. For example, were it not for the Economic Development Committee’s energy review, I doubt whether the Severn barrage would have emerged as a key issue for debate and discussion by the Assembly. It is an issue that has a profound impact on the environment and economy of Wales, as well as on parts of England.

In his summing up, I would like the Deputy Presiding Officer to advise me how he intends to take forward the recommendations that refer to the Presiding Office, particularly in relation to Standing Orders. The wording is a little heavy:

‘Presiding Office staff to consider Standing Order amendments required and advise Business Committee.’

I thought that it was for the Assembly as a whole to amend Standing Orders, and I would like clarification of the Business Committee’s role in this respect and an explanation of how that will be taken forward.

In conclusion, this report has made progress on many issues. It leaves some unanswered questions, and some to be moved forward. I urge the Assembly to vote for the amendments as I have described. There will be a free vote on the rest.

The Welsh Conservative group supported the commitment given in the terms of reference of the Assembly Review of Procedure Committee, that it would proceed as far as possible on the basis of all-party consensus. I attended nearly all Committee meetings, and we were able to come to some consensus at the end of most of our discussions.

I am disappointed that Members’ attendance shows that we have not taken ownership of this report. Members’ commitment to making representations to the Committee was minor. Representations were made through party groups in the usual way, but few, if any, ordinary Members gave us their comments. I am also disappointed that few Ministers are present to hear the content of this report today. I am particularly disappointed that the First Minister is not here.

I was struck, in the relatively informal meetings at Cathays Park, where we listened to the questions of staff and tried to respond to them, by the staff’s clear commitment to the National Assembly, not just to the civil service. I found that interesting and commented on it in my group; it gave me great reassurance for the future. Those sessions were well conducted. I urge all Members, if the Presiding Officer gives us the opportunity again to have that form of consultation, to go to those meetings and listen to our staff.

I was also impressed by the efforts taken to understand the proposals and ideas presented by the political parties represented in the Chamber, numerous groups and organisations and, particularly, individual members of our communities. That acknowledgement of other views demonstrated a commitment to proceed as far as possible on the basis of consensus.

Another important issue identified in many paragraphs of the report—paragraphs 4.4, 4.10 and 4.12—is to do with our ability to comment on legislation in Westminster and Brussels, although the latter was identified not so much in our report but in our discussions. That will have a profound impact on voting. If we are perceived, as a legislature, to have an impact on the issues concerning people’s everyday aspirations, they are more likely to turn out to vote in our elections. If we are perceived as an irrelevance, with little authority and little input into our Government’s actions, the turnout at our elections is likely to be lower.

Llywydd, you will know from your participation in these meetings that they were not only well conducted but that those who made presentations felt that their views were considered. I hope that those points will be taken on board when we vote on this. This is an important review. I hope that we can go forward like this for other measures in future, but perhaps in not so formal a way.

Again, I emphasise that Members had the opportunity to put their views to this group. Few were expressed; therefore, I hope that this exercise will be undertaken again, but in a less involved and contrived form.

I welcome the review. It would be appropriate for us to continue it as time goes on, as Ron said, because we are a new, still-evolving body. I will comment on some of the amendments. On Jonathan Morgan’s amendment 8, I am opposed to a vote on the short debate. It is the only opportunity afforded to backbenchers to speak on any subject that they wish, unconstrained by the knowledge that there might be a vote at the end of it. It is also impossible to form a reasoned opinion based on a 15-minute speech and a few brief contributions from other Members. The short debate could also be given a better slot than—though I hate Alun Pugh’s expression—‘the fag end of Thursday mornings’. Can we consider a fairer system of allocating the debates, perhaps an alphabetical one, which would prevent some of us having three opportunities to hold a short debate in one year?

We will vote against Jonathan’s amendment 9 on hard copies of the Record of Proceedings being made available. We lead the way in information technology provision and in our working practices. It would be a retrograde step. We would probably have to build a new library in the car park to store the tomes of bound copies. The information unit here is good at providing copies to anyone who requests them. Also, places such as schools, public bodies and libraries, and the voluntary and business sectors, all have access to the internet.

I am against the proposal to extend Tuesday Plenaries to 6 p.m. and, if necessary and with notice, to 7 p.m. We need to think about how the uncertainty and inconvenience will affect the staff, including clerks, translators, the broadcasting unit and the record of proceedings team. It is not fair to impose these working times on them, at least not without consulting them. I do not know whether they were included in the consultation process. All Members are usually here until 8 p.m. and few of us go home to spend a quiet evening with our families. I spend several hours at home catching up on e-mails and correspondence. Therefore, it is not a case of Members wanting to be out of here at 5:30 p.m.

What also bothers me about the proposal is the effect that it will have on outside bodies. We welcome and encourage them to visit us at 5:30 p.m, perhaps for a 6 p.m. reception or presentation and the opportunity to speak to Members. It will also affect the all-party groups, which tend to meet at 5:30 p.m. for a 6 p.m. start. The proposed change will push the time even later and could adversely affect the groups. It takes a great deal of planning for an organisation to visit us from the various corners of Wales and even given a week’s notice that we might be sitting until 7 p.m., those organisations will already have sent out invitations to dozens of people. We need to consider that. I will vote in favour of the motion today, but will reserve judgment on how I will vote when the revisions to Standing Orders necessary to extend working hours comes before us. I may well vote against it. I would like us all to think about the implications of working later and the uncertainty that will arise from not knowing on which nights we may be working late.

As I still have a minute or two in which to speak, I will comment on First Minister’s question time. During my wonderful visit to Ottawa with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—which some of you will have heard about several times—I was amazed by how Prime Minister’s question time was dealt with. Will our First Minister consider having a completely open session, where there are no set questions and everyone can jump up and ask whatever they wish? Canada also has a weekly 10 minute slot when backbenchers can say whatever they wish—within certain standards—for one minute. Several people have mentioned the need for backbenchers to be afforded the opportunity to have a real say in this Chamber today. Finally, I will vote against amendments 8 and 9.

I will make some remarks about the legislative process, which is crucial to the Assembly, and reflect on the recommendations of what is a worthwhile report and a good start in reforming some of our procedures. On primary legislation, it is clear that the most effective way for the Assembly to have an input into it would be via draft Bills published by Her Majesty’s Government. The Minister for Assembly Business acknowledged that earlier when he mentioned his discussions with the Leader of the House of Commons during his visit to the Assembly last Tuesday. He said that Bills that apply only to Wales ought to undergo a pre-legislative scrutiny in the Assembly. I welcome that; it is important. However, please note the definition: the Bills that would be prepared in draft would be those that apply to Wales only. That is only likely to be the case for specific and limited Bills.

For instance, let us take the NHS (Wales) Bill, which we are told will be presented in draft form sometime this year. That will deal principally with the future of community health councils in Wales. It is significant; they are important organisations and will have an important function in the reformed national health service. However, it is very specific. The more significant, major Bills that deal with major items of public policy, will continue to be presented on an England and Wales basis. That is already the practice. The NHS Reform and Health Care Professionals Bill and the Education Bill have been presented as England and Wales measures. If major Bills on health and education, which are probably the most significant of the devolved matters—certainly in terms of the amount of public expenditure that they require—are not disaggregated and presented as Wales-only measures, then the future for our influence on primary legislation is grim.

Let us reflect on the fact that the Minister for Health and Social Services originally told us last June that the restructuring of the national health service in Wales would be dealt with by a Bill specific to Wales. Before the end of July last year—within six weeks—she had written to all the Health and Social Services Committee members to say that the measures would have to be carried in an England and Wales Bill. Such a volte-face within six weeks indicates that something dramatic happened in the Assembly Government’s discussions with its Westminster colleagues. To me, it is quite obvious what happened. The minute that you present a Wales-only Bill on the restructuring of the health service, which is happening around the UK, then you have to present an England-only Bill to deal with the restructuring of the health service in England. That would set a constitutional precedent that the Government is unwilling to set. I will not go into the constitutional implications, but they are extensive. I believe that we will never see significant draft Wales-only Bills presented to the Assembly. Indeed, we may go through this whole Assembly without dealing with one draft Bill if time is not obtained in the Queen’s Speech for the proposed NHS (Wales) Bill, which will reform community health councils.

On the secondary, or subordinate, legislation that the Assembly deals with, contrary to all original expectations, the executive and accelerated procedures have dominated our business. Last year, the extended procedure was not used once in the Health and Social Services Committee. The Executive must take responsibility for that and should indicate in an ordered manner, in advance, which items it thinks should be dealt with by the standard procedure and which by the extended procedure. One major argument in favour of devolution was that the Assembly would be able to scrutinise subordinate legislation and thereby legitimise it. Executive procedures are often required, because so much secondary legislation is routine. I do not object to that, but we are neither picking our targets nor using our full range of powers. Most major items of legislation should be subject to the extended procedure. For example, on reflection, it would have been better if we had sent the care standards regulations to the Subject Committee. A major consequence of using the extended procedure more frequently would be that, inevitably, the workload and work patterns of the Subject Committees would change dramatically. They would have to spend up to half their time scrutinising legislation. I would welcome that development.

Yr wyf am siarad ar yr argymhelliad i ymestyn oriau’r Cyfarfod Llawn tan 6 p.m., neu weithiau tan 7 p.m., ar nos Fawrth. Yr wyf yn gwrthwynebu unrhyw newid o’r fath yn gryf. Mae hwn yn bwynt pwysig o egwyddor i mi ac i Aelodau eraill, yn y Blaid Lafur yn arbennig. Yr ydym yn ceisio datblygu system o lywodraeth fodern, gynhwysol sydd yn addas ar gyfer y byd real a bywydau pobl normal. Anfonwn neges gwbl anghywir allan ynglŷn â sut yr ydym am weithio yma os cyflwynwn y newid hwnnw.

A gytunwch y byddwn yn anfon neges negyddol allan os nad ydym yn barod i drafod materion o bwys i Gymru?

Derbyniaf yn llwyr fod angen trafod materion o bwys. Yr wyf wedi dod i’r casgliad nad yw bywyd gwleidyddol yn ystyriol o fywyd teuluol, ac i Aelodau’r Cynulliad sydd yn byw yn y Gogledd neu’r Gorllewin, nid yw’r Cynulliad yn lle ystyriol o deuluoedd o gwbl. Ond nid yw hynny yn rheswm i ildio ar ein llwyddiannau pwysig yn y lle hwn.

I object to your glib reference to what you called the ‘Llanelli amendment’, Nick. Had you any idea of the difficulties of trying to balance work with family life in this place, you would not single out certain people as if they were odd, particularly Helen Mary Jones, who is a single parent. We ought to protect such people and make it easier for them to do this kind of work, not behave as you did. I suggest that you look to your own party and ask yourself why there are no female Members on your benches when you speak in favour of this kind of change.

I accept the rebuke in relation to Helen Mary Jones. However, do you agree that all we are seeking to do is extend business for half an hour? I am sure that you would agree that there are many people in your own party from mid and north Wales—and you represent Mid and West Wales yourself—who would welcome this change, and who are often here until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. at night anyway.

Ar fater yr hanner awr ychwanegol, bydd llawer o bobl yn dweud na fydd hanner awr yn gwneud llawer o wahaniaeth. Fodd bynnag, fe fyddwn i’n awgrymu nad yw’r bobl hynny yn deall problemau ymarferol gofal plant. Mae’r rhan fwyaf o ofalwyr plant yn gorffen eu gwaith am 6 p.m. ac mae’r rhan fwyaf o feithrinfeydd yn cau am 6 p.m. Felly byddai unrhyw aelod o staff y Cynulliad sydd yn manteisio ar yr adnoddau hynny yn dioddef yn ofnadwy, ac fe fyddwn innau hefyd.

Mae plant ifanc a babanod yn mynd i’r gwely o gwmpas 7 p.m., felly bydd colli hanner awr o’r amser prin hwnnw ar ddiwedd y dydd gyda’r teulu yn gwneud byd o wahaniaeth i bobl sydd yn ceisio cydbwyso gwaith llawn amser â gofal plant. Bu’n rhaid inni frwydro’n galed dros yr egwyddor hon wrth sefydlu’r Cynulliad, a byddai’n gwbl annerbyniol inni ildio’r egwyddor honno yn awr. Am y rheswm hwnnw, ni chytunaf â gwelliant 5 Plaid Cymru, oherwydd ni ddylem ildio yr un fodfedd ar yr egwyddor sylfaenol hon ynglŷn â sut y mae’r Cynulliad yn gweithio. Derbyniaf bwynt David a Nick ynglŷn â’r pwysau ar amser y Cynulliad, ond dylem geisio darganfod ffyrdd mwy creadigol o ddefnyddio’r amser sydd gennym, nid tanseilio’r egwyddor sylfaenol hon o barchu bywyd teuluol.

I also welcome this report. However, as many Members have said, I note that it is a fairly modest report and that the recommendations are limited in their effect on the workings of this place. We must accept that this whole process is based on a fundamentally flawed constitutional settlement. It is therefore as effective as trying to adjust the picture quality on a clapped-out television set.

Mae angen inni edrych yn sylfaenol ar rai o’r pwyntiau hyn. Edrychwch, er enghraifft, ar weithgareddau’r Pwyllgorau Pwnc. Mae problemau gyda hwy. Rhaid inni gofio cefndir sefydlu’r Cynulliad. Y bwriad gwreiddiol oedd cael system o bwyllgorau, ond fe newidiwyd honno i system gabinet. Felly, mae’r Pwyllgorau wedi eu seilio ar system nad yw’n bodoli bellach.

Mae rôl y Gweinidog ar bwyllgorau yn fater. Er bod manteision i bresenoldeb y Gweinidog, mae hefyd anfanteision. Gall pobl sy’n cyflwyno tystiolaeth gredu, pan fo adroddiad Pwyllgor yn cael ei baratoi a bod y Gweinidog yn rhan o’r broses honno, fod yr adroddiad yn cynrychioli barn y Gweinidog neu bolisi’r Llywodraeth. Fodd bynnag, nid yw hynny’n wir, ac mae’n rhaid i’r Gweinidog ymateb i’r adroddiad hwnnw maes o law. Gall y Gweinidog, er iddo fod yn rhan o baratoi’r adroddiad, benderfynu gwrthod ei holl argymhellion. Cred Plaid Cymru ei bod yn bwysig cael dadl lawn, nid ar yr adroddiad ei hun, ond ar ymateb y Gweinidog iddo—i weld beth yn union y mae’r Gweinidog yn ei ddweud amdano—fel y gallwn effeithio ar bolisi. Mae rôl y Pwyllgorau yn gyfyngedig i graffu a chyflwyno syniadau ar gyfer polisi. Mae ffurfio polisi yn rhan o gyfrifoldeb y Weithrediaeth, ac felly y dylai fod.

Mae problem gyda’r Pwyllgorau Rhanbarth hefyd. Maent yn bwysig o ran rhoi cyfle i’r cyhoedd fynegi barn, ond rhaid inni greu strwythur a fydd yn galluogi i’r trafodaethau gael eu bwydo yn ôl i weithgareddau prif ffrwd y Cynulliad. Nid yw’n digwydd ar hyn o bryd. Mae’r adroddiad hwn yn ymwneud ag aelodaeth y Pwyllgorau Rhanbarth a’r ardaloedd maent yn ymwneud â hwy; nid yw’n ymwneud â’u gweithrediadau. Dylai’r Pwyllgorau hynny edrych ar adolygiadau sy’n cael eu cynnal gan y Cynulliad a bwydo’r gwaith hwnnw. Dylid cael strwythur a fyddai’n golygu y byddai’n rhaid inni ystyried y dystiolaeth a gyflwynir i’r Pwyllgorau Rhanbarth.

Mae fy amser bron ar ben ac felly terfynaf fy sylwadau yn y fan honno i Aelodau eraill gael cyfle i gyfrannu at y drafodaeth hon.

First, I congratulate the Llywydd and the Dirprwy Lywydd, and all members of the Review Committee on their work on our behalf. This is the property of all Assembly Members as it affects us all. This is an important occasion for Members to be present and I wish that more were here to discuss the report. There are several issues that have been well focused upon and which will help us to make the National Assembly more efficient. That is important. There is no point tilting at windmills and talking about extra powers and so on; that was never the point of this review. That is an issue for the commission that will follow.

On the South East Wales Regional Committee, I have much sympathy for Jonathan—who chairs the Committee and does a great job—and his amendment 6. It is a top-heavy Committee. There are 12 regional list Members out of 20 on it. Four of those represent South Wales West. I cannot understand why they are on that Committee. It makes it unwieldy and causes great confusion for the public about its identity. I would like that changed in the future and hope that that can be done. I would support that amendment today were it not for the fact that I am only recently back in the Labour group and do not want to go against the whip and find myself outside it again. You will understand that discretion is the better part of valour.

To raise a point of particular concern to me, under point 3.26, there is a passing reference to a ‘temporary chair’ as though we were talking about some village institute committee. We are talking about a temporary Chair of the National Assembly for Wales. We need to value that and understand what this is about. This is an important constitutional principle. The election of Chair of this Assembly is the ultimate collective power of all Assembly Members. We all have great confidence in and respect for you and your Deputy, Llywydd, and we thank you for the good work that you undertake. However, it is not appropriate to treat the position of Chair—in your absence or your Deputy’s absence through indisposition—as a political bauble. This reference smacks of the political naivety of the civil service suggesting it.

I am sure that when you think about it carefully, you will realise what this is about. With respect, it is not for our Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer to devolve power to a panel of Chairs, which is described as an informal forum on page 22 of the report. With all due respect to the individuals who make up that forum, it is not for that little cabal alone to have the opportunity to be called to chair this Assembly. The role is far more important than that. It should be open to a vote by Assembly Members in the Chamber, as has been the practice in the past, through a secret ballot. That is how we should appoint a Chair, even temporarily. That is important. It is not as if Members here could not Chair these debates, if we needed them to do so because there is a division between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ here. I need only look around and see Members such as Ron Davies, a former Secretary of State for Wales, and Dafydd Wigley—who is not here today—a Privy Councillor. There is also Mike German, an ex-Minister—an ex ex-Minister, because he is not in the Chamber at the moment. However, as a party leader, it might be difficult for him to chair. Rosemary Butler—who is not here at the moment—Tom Middlehurst, myself and others, could also offer our services. There are other able Members and young bright sparks, such as Lynne Neagle, Christine Chapman, Huw Lewis, and Jocelyn Davies, who has an excellent grasp on constitutional matters, which we should all respect—[CONSERVATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ‘What about us?’]

Glyn Davies, for example, is part of the cabal; I cannot include him. These proposals will come before us again because Standing Orders will need to be revised. We will all have our say on that. It is important that all Members are given the same opportunity when we select and elect the first among equals, which is the position held by you, Llywydd, or the Member who takes your seat temporarily. I suggest that we set up a panel and hold a secret ballot to elect Members to that panel so that they can be democratically elected with a mandate and franchise from us. They could then be called on, if necessary, to take over from the Llywydd or Dirprwy Lywydd.

I will make some brief remarks on legislation and the role of Regional Committees. Those two issues are unrelated, but nonetheless important. I support David Melding’s and Ron Davies’s remarks on legislation this morning. In my experience, the Assembly needs to learn lessons on, for example, how the Education Bill was dealt with. We were fortunate to have the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales in Committee for approximately an hour to consider the Bill and discuss some of its provisions. Unfortunately, the Westminster Government has had no way of assessing the Assembly’s views. It has been able to assess the views of Assembly officials, because they have provided assistance, and the views of the Minister and the Cabinet, because of close political links. However, it has not had the opportunity to establish the views and assess the opinions of individual Assembly Members because that Bill has not been debated in Plenary. We need to consider that process and learn from the mistakes that have been made—

I am grateful to you for giving way and I endorse your points. However, do you agree that, were different parties to govern at Westminster and in the Assembly, the link between Westminster and Assembly Ministers would not necessarily be as close as it is now and that that would exacerbate the problem?

I am sure that that might be the case. However, if the Assembly were allowed to examine these kinds of Bills more closely, particularly if large parts of them are are devoted solely to Wales, as is the case with the Education Bill, we would have an opportunity to form a view. However, the Westminster Government is not aware of the Assembly’s views on this issue. That is also important in terms of the link that you described, Alun.

Having a UK Government Minister attend the Committee is useful, and I hope that we will make further use of that in future; the Secretary of State for Wales or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, or even a Whitehall Minister, could come to the Assembly to participate in Committee proceedings. It is advisable, as is set out in the report, for Assembly Ministers to be able to give advance notice to Subject Committees of aspects of subordinate legislation. I agree with the Minister for Assembly Business and David Melding that that will lead to an explosion in the workload of Subject Committees in terms of scrutinising subordinate legislation.

The work of Regional Committees has become more focused. It is easy for Members to treat these Committees as an add-on—the bit that we do at the end of a week from time to time. I know that some Members find it difficult to attend Committee meetings, particularly those who are members of more than one. In response to Peter Law’s comments about the size of the South East Wales Regional Committee, which has 30 members, I believe that Regional Committees’ boundaries should be coterminous with the Assembly’s electoral boundaries. There are several facts that support making such a decision. First, the public is becoming more aware of the regional work of regional Assembly Members; people are more aware of the concept of me being the Member for South Wales Central. As a result, it would be wise to have Regional Committees that identify with our constituencies.

Secondly, members of public bodies also recognise the role of regional Assembly Members, as we tend to receive a considerable amount of correspondence and invitations to attend meetings that are pertinent to the geographical boundaries of our constituencies. The publicity we gain as regional Members and people’s greater understanding of our work means that having Regional Committees that represent electoral regions would be appropriate. It is difficult for regional Assembly Members to take a keen interest in such expansive areas, particularly in terms of the South East Wales Regional Committee, whose area of responsibility stretches from Monmouthshire in the east, to Bridgend in the west. It is difficult to take an interest in areas that we do not represent, and perhaps we would not have a full understanding of issues affecting certain parts of that area. Regional Committees based on regional electoral boundaries would allow us to show a real interest in the areas we represent as Members.

In terms of input into the policy process, I would welcome the notion, particularly as Chair of the South East Wales Regional Committee, that Regional Committees should be able to submit reports to Plenary for debate. In May, the South East Wales Regional Committee will debate transport and communications, with a particular focus on Cardiff international airport as a major contributor to the economy, transport and communications in south-east Wales. That is the kind of issue that the Committee could put on the agenda for Plenary debate.

I welcome this report and urge Members to support the amendments in my name.

As for all other issues, we are most likely to concentrate on areas of the report with which we are not happy. I will refer briefly to how we deal with Plenary debates, and to amendment 10 in the name of Andrew Davies.

Plenary debates are the Assembly’s centrepiece in terms of public accountability. Frequently, we fail to reflect our achievements positively to the people of Wales. In major debates there is often a rule of inverse importance; in other words, there is an inverse relationship between the amount of time allocated to discuss an item and its importance. This debate—as I try to make my contribution as brief as possible—is a clear example of that. We need a situation in which Members who are contributing to a debate are given a guaranteed amount of time in which to contribute. It is not acceptable for people, with virtually no notice, to be told that they can only contribute for between 30 seconds and three minutes in important debates. All Members should be given a minimum of five minutes in which to make contributions. It is the Business Committee’s duty to try to anticipate the length of time of each debate and how long contributions should be, according to the subject’s importance. If there is not enough time at the end of a debate to include everyone who wishes to speak then that debate should be automatically adjourned and rescheduled for another time, rather than contributions being curtailed, as frequently happens at present.

I support amendment 10. It is important that the Assembly has an opportunity to consider the general run of legislation, if it affects Wales. However, it would be out of order for us to carry out detailed scrutiny of primary legislation; that is the responsibility of our Members of Parliament. There are probably Assembly Members who would like to have a virtual parliament in exile in Wales, scrutinising the legislation being formed at Westminster. That would be an inappropriate use of time and resources and would reflect badly on the National Assembly.

The problem with what you have just said is that you would have the Government and the policy-generating institution in the Assembly, while the primary law that needs to underpin much of its work would be scrutinised in Westminster. That is not a coterminous system.

I was going on to say that the legislation that directly affects our devolved powers needs to be separated from other legislation. We need a mechanism to scrutinise that legislation in particular detail. We should not spend a large amount of time and resources dealing with legislation that is the responsibility of our MPs. We need to consider that which is relevant to devolved matters in more detail. I criticise this report for not giving us enough advice or help on how we should deal with this particular problem.