| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Will the hon. Member refrain from using the word "you"? He is implying that I am involved in his argument.
Mr. Paterson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I looked the Secretary of State in the eye, which provoked the use of the word "you".
That is my final point.
Mr. Paterson:
Do not presume on the acquiescence of the English.
12.44 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): The patronising character of the speech that we have just heard would make us rabid nationalists very quickly if we heard many more of the kind.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) on an amusing speech. He is a refreshing change from his predecessor--my hon. Friend had to pay him compliments, but the rest of us do not. We welcome my hon. Friend, not least because we got rid of someone who, at times, abused the House in his language and personality. I am sorry to have to say that, but it is true. My hon. Friend is a wonderful and welcome change. The fact that old and new parliamentarians alike represent seats such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and Vale of Clwyd is an important aspect of our democracy. I congratulate my hon. Friend, who will stand up for his constituents.
Before I make one or two comments on the White Paper, I have something to say to some of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). We should stop peddling the notion that individual Labour Members who dare to criticise the White Paper or who are opposed to devolution--such as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and, in different ways, my
hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West(Mr. Williams)--are, in some way, Tories. I ask Ministers to take a lead in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East lined up with people such as Nick Edwards in 1978 and 1979, but I did not accuse him of being a Tory. I respected his views, and we argued it out honourably. I respect his change of mind, and he should not impugn the motives of people who do not share his views. After all, halfway through the Thatcher period, in 1985, my hon. Friend described Welsh Members who supported devolution as
I support the White Paper, but I have reservations. One cannot suspend one's personal critical faculties simply because we will have a referendum campaign, so I wish to take this opportunity to mention two important reservations and to ask Ministers how much of the White Paper is written in stone. Is the White Paper the last word, or is it a substantial contribution to the debate that can be revised?
My first point is one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales understands. Indeed, we have discussed it from the start. I believe that we have missed a big opportunity to dismantle the quango state. The devolution Bill should dismantle it, but those bits of dismantling that my right hon. Friend has offered us so far are more of a gesture than a serious attempt to address the issue. I do not need to make that case in my terms, because I can make it in his. I cannot think of anyone who has been a more vitriolic--or a more powerful and vehement--critic of the quango state than my right hon. Friend. In his speeches and written contributions he has denounced the quango state. He has used language that would not fall from my lips. He has repeatedly referred to the 180 quangos, the £2.5 billion and the 850 appointees--more than the number of elected councillors--that constitute the quango state.
What concerns me is that I do not see anything like all that being swept away, either between now and 2000 or after 2000. We are being offered the nightmarish prospect of the Assembly sitting down and voting people on and off all the existing quangos. The thought of having to put 800 appointees through the democratic process is a nightmare. I presume that it would be something like the American Senate procedure, with the Assembly in continuous session deciding whether to approve the credentials of the appointees to the various boards accountable to it. The whole concept is a bit of a nightmare, which is why I would greatly prefer the more fundamental approach of doing away with the vast majority of appointees of the character described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
In the spirit in which we have argued this point, I would point out that it was my right hon. Friend, not me, who used terms at which I blanched about the "wasteful", "excessive" and "vast" expenditure on the running costs
of many quangos. On more than one occasion we have implied that much of the cost of our new Welsh Assembly will be financed by considerable savings on those running costs. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) said that in an earlier intervention. I do not foresee our making the sort of savings that would be associated with the words he used--excessive, wasteful and vast--to describe the administrative and running costs of quangos, albeit not the remuneration of staff. I do not envisage those savings emerging from the White Paper's proposals to a time scale that would meaningfully offset the costs of the Assembly.
My right hon. Friend referred to the excessive, wasteful overheads of the Arts Council of Wales and the vast sums spent on the Curriculum Assessment Authority for Wales and the Welsh Language Board. When we hear such language and then read the White Paper, which states that the Arts Council and Sports Council for Wales
My right hon. Friend and I disagree on what can be done about royal charters. I sought advice and was told that an Act of Parliament--a section in a devolution Act--can remove charters, assuming Royal Assent is given. What is not required is grovelling before the boards on our hands and knees, asking them for their consent, which is the inference I draw from the White Paper.
I have one further specific point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider going further. As the debate emerges over the next few weeks in the run-up to the referendum, we shall demonstrate our case far more forcefully if we can say that we will unwind and dismantle the quango state.
Mr. Ron Davies:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because the matter he raises is important and I want to deal with it now. Let me assure him that my determination is as strong as it ever was and that the proposals in the White Paper will allow us to achieve that which we want to achieve. All the quangos to which he referred will be made accountable. Many of them will be abolished by the legislation that will follow from these proposals and we are getting rid of nine.
On the question of the charter bodies, I assure my hon. Friend that the advice that he has been given and that given to me is correct and that there is no inconsistency. Paragraph 3.25 of the White Paper refers to the amendment of charters. As he says, as Parliament is sovereign, so Parliament can abolish charters; but the amendment of charters requires action to be initiated by the charter bodies themselves.
Mr. Rowlands:
I do not want to get into a lengthy debate. From the number who rose when they thought I was finishing my speech, I am aware of the pressure on time. I hope that the White Paper is not the last word on the issue and that between now and the referendum, we sound more convincing about dismantling the quango state.
I believe that another aspect of the White Paper goes a step too far--the function and role of the Secretary of State. Our judgment on the role of the Secretary of State
should not be clouded by the unrepresentative individuals who have held the post in the past 18 years. We should concentrate on the significance of the office of state and the role that the Secretary of State has played in the past and can play in the future.
Irrespective of who has held the post, one of the great success stories of the past 20 years--led by the office and by the nature of the budget--has been the Secretary of State's role in attracting inward investment. He has been a pivotal force in delivering investment into Wales--double the average for the rest of the country.
Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan):
My hon. Friend is right about direct foreign investment, but wrong about gross domestic capital formation--in other words, UK investment into Wales is under-performing.
Mr. Rowlands:
I was just about to refer to that distinction. One of the reasons for our success in attracting inward investment has been the role of the Secretary of State alongside the Welsh Development Agency. We must not damage the powerful economic role that a future Secretary of State could play as the voice for Wales outside Wales. I do not see that voice being effective under the White Paper's proposals.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not have a penny of the regional selective assistance budget to use on behalf of Wales. We have all been involved in inward investment in various ways. The flexibility to manipulate funds and to offer competitive packages at short notice has been due to the Secretary of State and the WDA. Frankly, it is not a democratic process--it is the ability to move quickly and to shift funds and make offers swiftly. I cannot see under the structure proposed in the White Paper how a Secretary of State can continue to play this role. He will not have the budget, to start with.
The figures for the regional selective financial assistance budget in a previous White Paper compare the grants offered to overseas companies with those offered to others. It should be a part of a Secretary of State's functions to have a budget equivalent to the regional selective financial assistance that is available to overseas investors, and he should have a powerful economic role. The White Paper will make him something of an economic eunuch, because he will have neither the budget nor the power.
A combination of the Secretary of State with a Welsh inward investment agency working in partnership with a Welsh Assembly could retain and sustain the drive that we have had in inward investment. A key part of the Welsh Office budget, and a key part of any future Secretary of State's role, might be damaged by the White Paper's proposals and may mean that we are unable to create jobs and attract investment at the levels we have enjoyed in recent years.
"sleepwalking . . . into the constitutional cul-de-sac of devolution, a spectre that haunted the Welsh Labour Party until it was decisively exorcised by the 1979 Referendum."
Let us argue about the issues and the contents of the White Paper, not personalities. We should not describe people who hold different views as crypto-Tories. They are not. They have held their views consistently, and represent a not insignificant percentage of Welsh public feeling. Let us get on with the argument.
"will be invited to suggest amendments to their Charters",
it is not surprising that we notice a difference between rhetoric and action.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |