| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South): Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the Welsh Local Government Association whole-heartedly supports the assembly?
Mr. Syms: Yes, and I suspect that the association, controlled as it is by the Labour party, would.
The problem that I have described will give rise to conflict between the assembly and local authorities. It will, after all, be the only place to which they can go for money. A further problem is that anyone elected to the assembly will try to find a way of being seen to make a difference. Overall, therefore, I do not believe that the proposals will be helpful.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) rightly said that the proposals must be tested against the worst-case scenario. Of course, good
unionists hope that people will work together and that the United Kingdom will remain an integral entity--but it will not always be easy. Conflicts will always arise with elected authorities. Indeed, there were conflicts between local and national government when my party was in power. One sees the same problem in the dynamics between Europe and this Parliament. Those in the assembly--which I suspect will be in Cardiff--will have every incentive to posture and argue for their particular authorities: it would be most unusual if they did not. Anyone elected to such an assembly always wants to secure to himself the maximum amount of power and authority.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State's role, if he is still in position at the time, will be difficult. Even if his party members dominate the assembly, there will be tensions. There are already tensions in the Welsh Labour group over Cardiff, for example. A certain amount of tension can be creative, but too much of it is dangerous to any democratic process. The legislation carries the implied assumption that there may be parties of the same political colour at Westminster and in Cardiff. That is not necessarily so in the long term; there could be a Labour-controlled assembly but a Conservative Government.
Mr. Ron Davies:
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with care because he is trying to make a rational case. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not necessarily agree with it. He is talking about tensions in the system. Is he aware of the sort of tensions there were while the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State? Not one local authority in Wales was in political agreement with him; the overwhelming majority of Welsh Members of Parliament were completely opposed to what he was doing; he was reorganising Welsh local government; and--crucially--he returned £110 million of the Welsh block to the Treasury because he wanted to fulfil a political agenda that had nothing to do with Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman understand the tensions that that can cause?
Mr. Syms:
I do. In a former life, I served on Wiltshire county council. In the course of certain negotiations, we once attended a meeting in Cardiff with Welsh local authorities to discuss pay increases. I had the distinct feeling that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was not the most popular person in the Principality.
There are pluses and minuses in any union. Some places contribute to the Exchequer, others take money out of it--people accept that. The same tensions may come to be felt in some parts of England if this Government stay in power for a long time.
Given the electoral success of the Secretary of State's party in Wales, one is forced to wonder about the scale of those tensions if you stick to your manifesto promises in the Principality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out, the election result certainly supplied you with a mandate to set up an assembly for Wales, but I am not so sure that the referendum result gives you the mandate--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing the Chair.
Mr. Syms:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Clearly, the no vote in the referendum got two and a half times as much support as the Conservatives got at the general election. That means that many Labour and liberal Democrat supporters--not to mention an overwhelming majority of Conservatives--must have voted no. With such a narrow vote, it is obvious that the Welsh people were in two minds. So, although I congratulate you on your victory--
I believe that devolution will be bad for Wales. The CBI has said that there is no economic imperative for an assembly. We have heard that the Secretary of State is to have reserve powers.
Before finishing, I want to mention the electoral arrangements. I support first past the post as the simplest and most accountable available system. True, it may benefit my party, but I do not believe that the system proposed for the assembly will do it justice: 40 members elected under first past the post, 20 by the alternative member system. That will mean two categories of assembly member. Will they have equal status? We just do not know. The alternative member system will operate as a closed party list system. Some may be elected in by-elections--those for the single-member constituencies--but those on the list will probably be filled by appointees. Immediately, there will be two different categories.
Mr. Ron Davies:
I am sorry to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman is so completely misinformed. There is no reason at all why the members on the list should come, as he is suggesting, from smoke-filled rooms and party lists. I would hope that my party, which has not made its decision on the matter, will decide its list system on the basis of a ballot of ordinary individual members. I have no doubt that this process will be followed by other political parties. There is no reason to suggest that it will be done by some stitch-up.
Mr. Syms:
I understand what the Secretary of State is saying--it will be a party, rather than an electoral, arrangement.
An ordinary Welsh constituent will have a Member of Parliament, a Member of the European Parliament, a member of the assembly elected through the constituency system and four assembly members elected under the alternative member system. In other words, he will have seven people to deal with constituency problems. All of us in the House know that people are not always clear where the boundaries occur. If a constituent has seven people to write to, there will not be accountability. Who knows which assembly member is dealing with a matter?
The system will diminish accountability. Under the present system, it is usually clear who is the Member of Parliament and where the buck stops if someone is not answering letters. There will be a problem with so many
representatives. This is an area where more does not necessarily mean better and does not provide a more accountable system.
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South):
Unlike the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), I think that this is a great day for democracy and a great day for Wales, as were 1 May and 18 September.
The enemies and despisers of democracy among the Tory ranks have made their predictable points against government being closer to the people. "Ranks" may not be an appropriate description, given that there are no Tory Members representing Welsh constituencies. The same distrustful hot air and anti-democratic rhetoric was spouted in Wales and Scotland by the Tories before the election. Where, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are those Conservative Members now? The British people ejected them, and the Welsh and Scottish people ejected them entirely.
Fortunately, the new Labour Government's plans for welfare to work and a minimum wage will ensure that former Tory Members are given an opportunity to contribute to society, perhaps in a way that they have not done previously.
Mr. Ron Davies:
Get them back to work!
Mr. Jones:
Get them to work might be more appropriate.
The Labour party has long argued that government should be based on partnership, democracy and inclusiveness. As part of that belief, the Welsh referendum was one of our key pledges. We delivered it, and Wales said, "Yes."
I must tackle the ridiculous suggestion that those people who did not vote were no voters. That is arrant nonsense. If that were the case, the last three Tory Governments would not have had majorities. Only 42 per cent. of the electorate voted for them, and if the 25 per cent. who did not vote had been counted as voting against them, they would not have had majorities. That is ludicrous. The "don't knows" remain to be convinced, and the Bill aims to create supporters from those "don't knows".
From a personal point of view, the Bill is a boyhood dream. A national assembly for Wales, as outlined in the Bill, will ensure that the people of Wales have the voice that they deserve, and will ensure that Wales is not left behind. We shall have fewer quangos and more democracy. Wales will secure more jobs, and better schools and hospitals. All that is part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's vision of a modern Britain.
The Welsh Assembly will give Wales a better health service by ensuring that scarce resources are spent on nurses and doctors, not on bureaucrats and red tape.
It will provide better skills by setting tough new standards for literacy, numeracy and overall achievement. It will provide better job opportunities by providing a voice in Europe and around the world to attract investment and back Welsh companies.
The assembly will provide better democracy and will ensure that decisions about local schools and hospitals will be made not behind closed doors in London but by people elected in Wales. It will provide better value for money, by bringing Welsh quangos to public account and scrutinising spending decisions.
I am particularly pleased that the assembly will improve the government of Wales by working in partnership with others, particularly Welsh local government. In this way, the assembly will bring the process of decision-making closer to the citizen, making national decisions closer to local government and augmenting the vital work of local government, rather than encroaching on its role.
The assembly is part of a wider vision of a modern Britain from a Government who believe that too much power is centralised in the hands of too few people, with too little freedom for local communities to decide their own priorities; hence the Government's proposals to meet the individual needs of Scotland, with a Parliament, and London, with a mayor. Perhaps, in time, we shall see regional governments throughout England. For the first time, decisions on schools, hospitals and other key services in Wales will be made by people elected by, and democratically accountable to, the people of Wales.
There is a desire to make Wales more powerful economically, and the Bill's proposals will do much to make this desire a reality by securing inward investment and stimulating home-grown enterprise. Wales can go even further. Through the character of its people, its innovative entrepreneurs and its fine educational heritage, Wales has unparalled opportunities to become an economic powerhouse in the context of sustainable development, making Wales an economic powerhouse today and tomorrow for ourselves and our children.
Sustainable development is not only a question of biodiversity, environmental protection, traffic reduction, renewable energy and securing clean air and water. It also provides opportunities to create jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the New York Earth summit on 23 June:
"We must make the process of government green. Environmental considerations must be integrated into all our decisions, regardless of sector. They must be in at the start, not bolted on later."
As Wales is reliant on industries such as agriculture and tourism, a healthy, rich and flourishing land is vital. It is also vital that sustainable development is integrated into all parts of the new assembly's powers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |