| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Evans: No doubt it operates from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Öpik: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct: it operates from my constituency. Its self-styled leader operates from a pub called The Bell, and hon. Members are most welcome to come to meetings of CASA--Cymru Aeronautics and Space Administration. Contributions from the Government would be most welcome.
Mr. Martin Caton (Gower): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate about beginning the process of decentralisation in Britain and of democratisation in the governance of Wales.
A clear understanding of what happened on 18 September is essential if we are to debate the Bill constructively. Quite simply, the people of Wales made a decision: they decided that they wanted to move away from rule by Whitehall outpost and quango archipelago; instead, they voted for government of the Welsh people for the Welsh people by the Welsh people. They voted for a directly elected Welsh Assembly, the "National Assembly of Wales" described in the Bill. They voted for democracy in the democratic process that was the referendum.
It is very depressing to hear Opposition Members sneering at that democratic process and, having lost the argument and lost the vote, saying, at worst, that we should ignore the result or, at best, interpret it to mean something other than the go-ahead for the Government's proposals as described in the White Paper. That democratic process and that referendum cannot and must not be treated in such a cavalier fashion. Neither turnout nor closeness of result can seriously be used to argue that the Bill should not be approved substantially unchanged if we are to respect what the people of Wales have said.
In fact, the turnout on an old register in a poll held at the end of the summer was far higher than is achieved in local government or European elections across the whole country. Should we, therefore, scrap our local authorities or not send representatives to the European Parliament? Some people argue that there should have been a threshold--we have heard that argument today. If we are honest, we know that the only people who argue for thresholds in such referendums are people who want to prevent change. A threshold is fundamentally undemocratic and possibly anti-democratic because it adds anyone not voting, for whatever reason, to the number of votes cast for one side of the argument.
That is the twisted logic of the Conservative Members who repeatedly preface their questions with, "As 75 per cent. of the Welsh people do not support the assembly". It is nonsense. Without compulsory voting, democratic decisions must be taken by the people who exercise their right to vote, and fairness demands that a simple majority must decide the question.
Dr. Julian Lewis:
For the fifth time, I argue that Labour Members do not accept that, when a vote takes place on an issue changing the constitutional rules of the game, the criteria for changing those rules should be higher than a simple majority. That is a constitutional safeguard in many democracies throughout the world, and it should have been a constitutional safeguard in this case.
Mr. Caton:
I understand that argument, but I do not agree with it. By imposing a threshold, one defends the status quo. Unfortunately, when we examine the Conservative Government's record, we find that they were prepared to impose thresholds to secure yes votes on some issues. When they were trying to remove council housing from local authority control, they imposed a threshold to shift the balance towards the yes votes. The Conservatives are not consistent in defending the status quo with thresholds.
There is an argument for thresholds, but I do not agree with it. I believe that a democratic decision should be taken on a simple majority vote, whether it be in an election for a Government or for a change of structure.
Mr. Donald Anderson:
I remind my hon. Friend of another example that shows that the Conservative party may be less than consistent--ballots in respect of grant-maintained status for schools. In a ballot in my constituency, despite a very small turnout and a minuscule majority, a school became grant-maintained. Therefore, for the Conservative party it is a matter not of principle but of what happens to suit its purpose at any moment.
Mr. Caton:
That is absolutely true, and I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Indeed, if we are thinking of ballots on grant-maintained status, the very fact that parents of children from feeder schools were excluded from the democratic process is another example of vote rigging by the Conservative party.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)
rose--
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
rose--
Mr. Caton:
I give way to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley).
Mr. Bottomley:
The hon. Gentleman will agree that the Welsh assembly--
Mr. Nick Ainger (West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire):
The hon. Gentleman has just come in.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that the decision to set up a Welsh Assembly is more important than the conversion of a building society from mutual status to profit earning. Why does he support the Government, who
say that a building society seeking to convert needs an absolute majority, but a referendum for a Welsh Assembly does not?
Mr. Caton:
The circumstances are very different. When attempts are made to bring about changes that will affect the interests of the members of a building society, who have joined for a purpose, those interests should be protected. That is a very different matter from changes in the general democratic process in a country, whether it be changes in structure--constitutional change--or the election of a Government, a council or whatever.
Mr. Ron Davies:
I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to be robust in rejecting the arguments of Conservative Members. Will he reflect on the fact that those arguments would have more credibility now if they had been advanced during the passage of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill? Conservative Members had every opportunity to table amendments to ensure that there was a threshold. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, because Conservative Members refused to do so then, the arguments that they are making now are spurious?
Mr. Caton:
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Hon. Members: "Oh, no, he isn't."] Oh, yes, he is. As my hon. Friends have said, we fought the referendum on a set of rules. We complied with the rules. Everyone knew those rules during the referendum process.
Mr. Gareth Thomas:
Is not this an illustration of parliamentary sovereignty in operation? Tonight, we have heard much from Conservative Members about parliamentary sovereignty. Does my hon. Friend agree that Parliament determined the rules within which the referendum would be conducted and that Parliament, exercising its sovereignty, determined that there should be no threshold?
Mr. Caton:
My hon. Friend has made the point rather better than I managed to.
Mr. Paterson:
The hon. Gentleman says that constitutional change should be made by majority. Does he agree that the British constitution belongs to all the people, and that it is a denial of democracy to have excluded 85 per cent. of the electorate from the referendum?
Mr. Caton:
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what those of us who had a vote were voting on. We had, and have, devolved government in Wales, in the form of the Welsh Office. It has considerable powers. All that we voted for on 18 September was to make its powers accountable to the people of Wales. That was rightly a decision for the people of Wales.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring):
The hon. Gentleman claims that changing the status of a building society requires an absolute majority, but changing the economic
Mr. Caton:
That is an interesting question, but I have made my case. [Interruption.] That would indeed be my position. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) is being far too noisy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |