| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Caton: I am happy to give way next to the Minister.
Mr. Hain: Parliament decided in the summer to hold an advisory, consultative referendum. Conservative Members have missed the point, which is that Parliament retained its sovereignty in the matter. It decided not on a binding referendum but on a consultative one. It therefore makes perfect logical sense to require a simple majority--which is what it was.
Mr. Caton: That is a good point. As for the wider British electorate's involvement, on 1 May the British electorate were of course involved. The Labour party fought the election on the idea that we would offer the people of Wales and of Scotland democratically elected and devolved government. They had their say then.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Another factor is that the party that claims to be the party of the Union would have been well on the way to destroying that Union if the clearly expressed views of Wales and Scotland had been overwhelmed by an English vote. Indeed, there could be no better recipe for the break-up of the union than if Wales and Scotland had been denied the constitutional settlement that they wanted.
Mr. Caton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is another reason why thresholds are so dangerous. If a simple majority vote for a particular course of action and are then denied the ability to take that course by the threshold mechanism, unrest is created.
Mr. Wigley: Is not the logic of these tedious Conservative interventions the idea that there should be a threshold for our Westminster votes as well? Are the Tories seriously advocating such a dramatic change in our practices here? They look bemused. It seems that they want to lay down thresholds for others, but not to entertain the idea here.
Mr. Caton: The right hon. Gentleman makes a useful point.
I wish to refer to the advisory nature of the referendum. As a Member of Parliament, I feel honour-bound to listen to the people of Wales. That is why I believe that we should not move too far away from the substance of the White Paper, as that is what the people of Wales voted on. That is not to say that there is no opportunity for change or debate. I confess that I have concerns, for instance, about the closed-list system in the electoral
process; such matters should be debated in the Chamber and in Committee. I am pleased that the Bill so accurately reflects what we voted for in the referendum.
I do not intend to take up too much time by repeating points that were made during debates on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act, which were central to the debate in Wales during the summer campaign. Instead, I should like to address three specific matters: first, the future of the quangos; secondly, the committee structure that will emerge from the commission's drawing up of draft Standing Orders, and their consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; and thirdly, the right of consultation by representatives of interest groups in Wales.
First, on quangos, some of my hon. Friends were disappointed that the White Paper did not go beyond dealing with the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Land Authority for Wales and Tai Cymru. I suspect that they were disappointed with the contents of the Bill. I do not share their disappointment.
Mr. Win Griffiths:
My hon. Friend is right to list the quangos to be dealt with by the Bill. However, he needs to remember that, under the existing powers, the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the residuary body will all be out of the way. We are currently carrying out the reconfiguration of trusts in which a substantial number of those will also disappear.
Mr. Caton:
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
I was involved in the development of devolution policy by the Welsh Labour party. I cannot remember a time--from early drafts onwards--when we were not looking at giving the assembly the main job of examining the functioning of the quangos. I have no problem with that, and I can see that the various bodies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary must be dealt with urgently. However, it would be wrong for us to say to the assembly, "You are in charge of how the quangos function and you must make sure that they are transparent, accountable and more effective than what we had before," while imposing a fait accompli on the assembly.
It is the job of the assembly to look at how the quangos in Wales function and to improve them. In that sense--and although some of my hon. Friends may feel that all we have is a campfire of the quangos--we are handing over the matches and the firelighters to the assembly to continue the work of democratising Wales.
Mr. Ron Davies:
I want to ensure that my hon. Friend fully understands the rationale of the Government's position, which is quite compatible with the Labour policy that he was instrumental in forming. It is a central requisite of the devolution policy that the assembly should be fully empowered to deal with all the public bodies to which my hon. Friend has referred. In the case of the Welsh Development Agency, for example, the assembly will be fully empowered to carry forward any further changes.
The Government took into consideration the uncertainty and delay that might have adversely affected the work of bodies such as the WDA, if, at this stage, we
said that in two and a half or three years the assembly would be empowered to carry out a restructuring. The Government's view was that the uncertainty hanging over the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales made it imperative for us to take early action, so that the powerhouse could be created to carry forward the work of economic development in Wales.
Mr. Caton:
I entirely accept the logic of that action. The creation of the powerhouse is important also because of the changes on the structural front emanating from the European Union. We need one organisation to cover all the functions previously dealt with by three.
My second concern relates to the committee structure that is to be developed for the Welsh Assembly. I note the intention to create subject areas covering all the matters listed in schedule 2. There are 18 of them: agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food; ancient monuments; culture; economic development; education and training; the environment; health and health services; highways; housing; industry; local government; social services; sport and recreation; tourism; town and country planning; transport; water and flood defence; and the Welsh language.
I recognise that all those matters must be covered by subject committees. My worry is that the commission and eventually the Secretary of State may plump for too many committees. With such large subject areas, there may be a temptation to go for a large number of committees, and thus more chairs, leaders, First Secretaries or whatever we will call them--more chiefs and fewer indians. That does not make for democratic government or for effective government. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
Mr. Wigley:
Does not the Bill allow sub-committees to be set up for each committee? The committee may be both a supervisory committee for the Minister and a body akin to a Select Committee, given the powers that are available. Those powers may best be exercised through a sub-committee system, with a restricted number of main committees, and with sub-committees to focus on the detail to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Caton:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the commission and the Secretary of State will consider such an approach.
There has been some debate about whether the assembly should work according to a Cabinet system or a local government committee system. The Bill allows for a new and different system that combines the best of both.
Mr. Ron Davies:
For the sake of clarity, I assure my hon. Friend that the advisory committee that will precede the work of the statutory commission will have a very wide remit. It can certainly consider the question whether the assembly operates on the basis of a Cabinet system or a local government system. I await the outcome with interest.
My hon. Friend referred to the list of functions in schedule 2. The purpose of the schedule is to make it clear that the Secretary of State will have the responsibility for laying orders transferring functions in those areas to the assembly. It is not meant to be a prescriptive list of
the committee structure. I agree with my hon. Friend, and the point was made by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), that there might be six, eight or 10 committees, rather than the entire list in the schedule.
Mr. Caton:
I thank my right hon. Friend for those helpful remarks, and I welcome the approach that he is likely to take.
As for the right of consultation for interest groups in Wales, like other hon. Members, I warmly welcome the provision in clause 110 that requires the assembly to draw up a scheme to sustain and promote local government. I particularly welcome the creation of the partnership council. The key to better government in Wales will be the right relationship between the two tiers of democratic representation in our country. Councillors and local authority employees have expressed fears that the assembly may seek to take over their responsibilities. Those fears have been aired in the Chamber today.
I believe that the White Paper did much to dispel those concerns. However, the Bill--and, in particular, the creation of the partnership council--will inspire further confidence that the assembly is good news for local democracy, as well as for democracy at the all-Wales level. After 1999, the quality of most of our major public services and our ability to grow as a sustainable economy will be in the hands of both our new assembly and our local councils. With a dynamic and constructive partnership, things can only get better.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |