| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Öpik: I shall in a moment, for the last time. Oh--it is the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
How can Conservative Members expect to be taken seriously when--after the event--they whinge about the process simply because they did not like its outcome on 18 September?
Dr. Lewis:
May I point out to the hon. Gentleman--in my fourth intervention in the debate--the difference between a vote on an issue of immense constitutional significance and a straightforward vote in a general or any other election? The only reason why Conservative Members were not able to propose a threshold is that debate was guillotined. The Conservative party did propose a threshold in the other place.
Mr. Öpik:
Let me put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. He has ignored the fact that, whereas decisions on legislation and policies governing the United Kingdom are tactical, the biggest decision that we make in the United Kingdom is electing a Government, who facilitate everything else. Therefore, when he implies that a constitutional decision is somehow greater, he ignores the fact that the Government facilitate those very constitutional changes. He can continue that line, but he is mixing up the tactical and the strategic. If he continues in that manner, I should very much like to hear--although not in an intervention in this debate--how he wants to
I assume that the hon. Gentleman, as he is a member of a party of great principle, will encourage his party not to offer a single candidate under a list system, which it believes is undemocratic--although I do not imagine for a moment that that will happen.
On funding, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made some important, reasonable points about the size of the pot, echoing concerns that have also been expressed by those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Mr. Ron Davies:
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of the Conservatives and the electoral system, is it his understanding that, under the present arrangements, it is most unlikely that the Conservative party would ever get elected according to constituency selection? Does he agree that it is only under the additional list system that the Conservatives are likely to have any representation in Wales?
Mr. Öpik:
The Secretary of State makes the point that has been reiterated on many occasions, but apparently it has not been heard by those who stand to gain the most from a change to a fairer system of election. Believe or not, I would welcome the introduction of a system of election of assembly members that offered advantage not only to the minority parties in Wales, but to the non-existent party in Wales, the Conservative party.
Mr. Öpik:
I shall give way, but for the last time.
Mr. Jenkin:
Can we take it that the only reason why the Liberal Democrat party supports proportional representation is that it believes that it does better under that system than under the present first-past-the-post system that we have in the House of Commons? If so, and given that the Conservative party will put up candidates for the Welsh Assembly under PR, is he not being hypocritical by standing for this Parliament under a first-past-the-post system?
Mr. Öpik:
The hon. Gentleman's second point is entertaining but entirely illogical, and his first point is perhaps even more amazing. If there is one party that stands to lose its status of importance in Scotland and Wales through the introduction of PR, it is the Liberal Democrat party, and if there is one party that stands to gain from its introduction in Scotland and Wales, it is the Conservative party. Although it might be difficult for some hon. Members to accept, the Liberal Democrats continue to support the change to fair votes out of principle rather than out of self-interest.
As I said, the hon. Member for Poole made some interesting comments about funding. We, too, have argued about that on a number of occasions. We proposed that the assembly should have tax-varying powers, and we regret that it will not. As I said in an earlier intervention, money could be found in other ways, for example, by replacing quango appointees with elected representatives of the assembly. That could save many millions of
pounds--the upper estimate is a saving of as much as £24 million, although I have not corroborated that figure. Currently, there are 1,400 quango appointees in Wales and 1,273 councillors. In other words, there are more unelected appointees than elected councillors. Surely there is money to be saved by replacing those appointees.
Hon. Members have also asked about how we shall invest in the priorities that matter. The answer, as the hon. Member for Poole acknowledged, is by changing those priorities. A repeated anxiety is that the assembly will destabilise the Union. Five words negate that concern--the United States of America. It is one of the most stable nations in the world, yet it is governed according to a federal system. It is unquestionably because of that federation and the acceptance of cultural variation, even law-making variation, across the United States, that that enormous nation is effective.
It has also been argued that the assembly would be bad for business. I simply do not accept that and, once again, the United States' experience seems to negate that argument. It is a laudable act of faith among those who will run the assembly that they will be able to devolve decisions to the regions of Wales, which will provide the impetus for success. The Development Board for Rural Wales is a classic example of having regional autonomy has helped to reinvigorate an ailing economy.
The location of the assembly has also been mentioned, and if I may add my tuppenny worth, I see no reason why the home of democracy in Wales, Machynlleth, should not be chosen, provided that the road network was greatly improved.
Mr. Donald Anderson:
Everyone understands the hon. Gentleman's need to press for his own little area, but is there available in Machynlleth a meeting place of sufficient prestige with sufficient seating capacity, which could be available by May 1999, as Swansea guildhall would be in a cost-effective way?
Mr. Öpik:
Without entering into too parochial a debate, I can guarantee that, for £14.5 million, I would build it myself.
Mr. Öpik:
Oh, yes, in the time available.
I apologise for having taken so much time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to raise a few points about the closed list system. We share the concern of the official Opposition that such a system carries the danger of party patronage. Even if that difficulty could be resolved, a problem of public perception would remain and assumptions would be made about jobs for the boys. We cannot constructively pursue that argument here on the Floor of the House, but I hope that we shall be able to debate it in subsequent stages of the Bill.
Mr. Hain:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he has been so tolerant of interventions. If--as is likely to be the case both for the Labour party and for his own--the selection of candidates in the list is determined by one person, one vote among the electorate, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that
Mr. Öpik:
The Minister suggests a compromise solution that is far better than a simple closed system, which the public might suspect of being a set of appointments for the party faithful. Nevertheless, we still prefer the concept of an open list, although we can talk about the details at a later stage. I reiterate that my reason for saying this is that we must have a strategically transparent system for electing assembly members, so that no one can believe that certain individuals are there only as a reward for party activities and not primarily for the interests of Wales.
My final point about the electoral system relates to clause 5, which has caused some confusion. It is not entirely clear to me whether it precludes an individual from standing in a constituency as well as in a list. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that point of interpretation when he sums up the debate tomorrow.
I have tried to cover a few specific areas, but I shall conclude on a broader point relating to the attitude of those in the Chamber tonight towards the introduction of a devolved assembly. It seems that there are those who still do not accept that, at the end of the day, devolution is a reasonable act of faith in the people to whom the responsibility is to be devolved. I once saw a wonderful cartoon, in which a father angrily asked his son, "How can you act so irresponsibly?" to which the son replied, "But Dad, that's how irresponsible people act!" In the same way, if we tell the Welsh people, ad infinitum, that they are incapable of governing their own affairs, they will live down to that expectation. However, finally--thankfully--on 18 September, enough people in Wales decided to believe in the national spirit to vote for the national devolution that we are now debating.
In the Greece of 2,500 years ago--a country with few resources and a small population--the people showed great vision and achieved far greater success than would ever have been predicted for them. Fifty years before that success, there was a substantial political reform that set in place the democratic opportunities and processes that led to the creation of an empire.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |