COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

of the

EVIDENCE OF:

Llew Smith MP

held at

Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, Westminster

on

THURSDAY 12 JUNE 2003

 In Attendance

Lord Richard, Chair, Richard Commission

Ted Rowlands, Richard Commission

Tom Jones, Richard Commission

Peter Price, Richard Commission

Dr Laura McAllister, Richard Commission

Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth, Richard Commission

Paul Valerio, Richard Commission

Vivienne Sugar, Richard Commission

Eira Davies, Richard Commission

Huw Thomas, Richard Commission

Llew Smith MP

Proceedings

 Lord Richard

Thank you very much for coming. I am greatly obliged. If you would be so kind as to identify yourself for the purposes of the transcript and then perhaps you would be kind enough to open up the discussion and then we can pursue it.

Llew Smith

Llew Smith, Labour MP, Blaenau Gwent.

I would like to make a fairly long opening statement and I am sure you will all bear with me and hopefully find it relevant.

First, I need to state that I am of the opinion that the Richard Commission should not have been established. The issues covered are not the responsibility of the Assembly and linked to this, the Labour Party should not contract out policy-making to a body made up of people whose views are often dramatically opposed to ours, as happened in Scotland.

In briefly commenting on these points, can I remind you that Rhodri Morgan in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 30th October 2000 admitted that the Welsh Assembly "cannot change our own powers; that is not a matter for us; that is a matter for you and your colleagues in the Houses of Parliament". As it is a "matter for us" in Parliament, why has the Richard Commission been set up?

This leads us to the other issue of contracting out policy making. We are told that the Richard Commission was established as part of the joint agreement for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. As the coalition is now a part of history, the Commission can be wound up. What is more, as the coalition was a result of a deal done behind closed doors by a few individuals and not with the Labour Movement, or the electorate it therefore has no standing with either of these groups.

Finally, few of us are naive enough to believe that the Commission is impartial, with their conclusion certainly being one of more powers for the Assembly. I therefore assume that many of the people opposed to additional powers for the Welsh Assembly will for this very reason be reluctant to give evidence to this Commission. I would obviously be pleased to be proven wrong on these issues.

If I can now examine the claims which form the substance of this submission. They are as follows:

Claim 1: Proportional Representation is more democratic.

It is useful in responding to the claim that "PR is more democratic" to examine how many of the 849,552 votes case in the regional list in the recent Welsh Assembly elections were received by each of the main political parties and the number of seats they were then allocated.

Plaid Cymru received 167,653 votes, which was 19.7 per cent. They had 7 seats allocated. The Conservatives received 162,725 votes which was 19.2 per cent of the electorate, or voting electorate, and they received 10 seats. The Liberal Democrats received 108,013 votes, which was 12.7 per cent, and they received 3 seats. Labour received 310,658 votes, which was 36.6 per cent of the vote and they did not receive any seats.

It is quite amazing that after waiting for power for 18 years, one of our first acts as a Government was to hand over power to the opposition parties in the Welsh Assembly, as we did in the European Parliamentary elections.

Indeed, as the above voting information shows, after polling 36.6 per cent of the votes, we did not win even one seat, whereas the other so called major parties polled an insignificant number compared to Labour but still received all of the 20 seats.

So in that respect the system is not democratic. Linked to this, it also invariably leads to coalition or minority Government. This can hardly be described as democratic, when coalition partners and policies are decided behind closed doors and without any involvement of the membership or the general public. While there was a coalition Government in the previous Welsh Assembly administration, other than the leaders of the respective parties, not one member of the public had voted for it and Rhodri failed to consult party members. The coalition partner received an insignificant vote and yet was part of Government, with one of their AMs becoming Deputy First Secretary after he himself even failed dismally to be elected on First Past the Post; indeed, he came a very poor fourth.

In the two Assembly elections, Labour has experienced both failure and success, but on each occasion we have failed to win a majority. This almost invariably happens under PR and I can only assume that many of the supporters of this scheme support coalition Government.

Now there are some who still argue that the Government should not revisit this subject by presenting a Bill to the House in order to rectify the wrongs of the present system. Why not? If we fail to produce such a Bill with the necessary changes then Labour is confined to a future of minority Governments in Wales. Furthermore, the 36.6 per cent who voted Labour in the regional list will continue to be disenfranchised, because their vote will be irrelevant as it cannot lead to their party achieving representation.

I am therefore of the opinion that we should introduce a one member per constituency, based on First Past the Post, for future elections to the Welsh Assembly. This would have the effect of reducing the number of AMs from 60 to 40 and therefore reducing costs by approximately 50 per cent. I could never understand why it was necessary for the Assembly to have 60 AMs when they are only responsible for some secondary legislation, whereas there were 40 MPs for the Parliament in Westminster when it was responsible not only for secondary, but primary legislation.

Claim 2: The public are demanding additional powers for the Welsh Assembly.

One should not forget that only approximately one in four of the electorate voted for an Assembly and in my experience a substantial proportion voted "Yes" out of loyalty to a Labour Government and a reluctance to "rock the boat" after 18 years of Tory rule. Obviously, I still accept that some voted "Yes" for other reason including, it may be argued, mainly the commitment to "make a bonfire of the quangos".

Personally speaking, I have not experience any pressure from the electorate for additional powers, or even an interest in the constitutional position of the Assembly, other than it should be abolished.

What is more, as Peter Hain admitted in response to a written Parliamentary question of mine that "during the election campaign I regularly met members of the public and discussed a range of issues. However, I do not recall anyone raising increased powers for the Assembly". (20/5/03)

While still on the subject of additional powers for the Welsh Assembly, it needs to be remembered that of the main parties the ones who received the worst results were the Welsh Nationalists and the Liberal Democrats, who both campaigned for a Welsh Parliament.

If one is considering the powers of the Welsh Assembly and possibly additional powers being transferred from Westminster, then surely one should also consider the reverse. Where decision-making does not seem to be working in the Welsh Assembly, they should be transferred back to Westminster, or where appropriate to local authorities.

Claim 3: It is an insult to Wales to be given fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament.

This is in reality a nationalist argument. While I am not sympathetic to an Assembly, I am still of the opinion that its powers should be based on the most effective form of decision-making. What we want is good Government, not nationalism. Are we so unsure of ourselves in Wales that we have to copy the Scots, when we were informed that one of the reasons for devolution was because we were different from the rest of the UK?

Claim 4: A Parliament would result in a "better deal" for Wales.

A number of individuals and political parties have put forward this viewpoint. For example, we were consistently told by the Nationalists that the failure to achieve "independence", or what they often describe as "self-government", or for Wales "to have a full seat in the European Council of Ministers" was preventing additional European money, such as Objective 1, being allocated to large areas of Wales. Yet without "independence" the so-called "London Government" successfully negotiated substantial money from this European Union Fund. Labour was therefore remarkably successful in obtaining Objective 1 for Wales, as was a former Labour Government in introducing the Barnett formula, without a Welsh Parliament, or indeed an Assembly.

How much longer will even more deprived communities in England be willing to subsidise Wales is debatable. Increasingly some representatives are saying that if you wish to govern yourself then you must accept the financial responsibility that goes with it.

Claim 5: A Parliament is required to solve problems faced in Wales.

This is a similar argument to the one used to justify a Welsh Assembly. We were left with the impression that it was some form of miracle cure for all our economic, social and constitutional ills. You name it, the Assembly would cure it. No explanation was provided as to how this would happen; the mere existence of an Assembly would be sufficient.

The same logic seems to apply to justify a Welsh Parliament. Once again, no one bothers to explain why more powers would be more efficient and it is simply asserted that the mere existence of a Parliament will be sufficient to rid Wales of so many of its problems.

Yet are we, for example, to accept that the NHS in Wales is run more efficiently than in England, since many of the powers have been devolved to Cardiff? No.

Do we accept that Wales is any less a quango state since the establishment of a Welsh Assembly? No.

Is there anything fair about an Assembly continuing to subsidise one of the richest areas in Wales, in Cardiff Bay, at the expense of some of the poorest communities? Has the Assembly benefited those deprived communities in a way in which a Labour Government would have failed to do so? No.

To save any further embarrassment for the Welsh Assembly, I will refrain from providing any other examples, but there are many.

We should therefore consider at what level of Government and institution decisions should be taken. The debate should not just be about whether we should transfer power to the Assembly but also whether, as I have already stated, any of their present powers should be returned to the UK Parliament or even devolved to Local Authorities.

The alternative is to accept the separatist argument that decision-making is one-way traffic, passing from the UK Parliament to the Assembly in order to meet their Nationalist aspirations.

As Socialists, we should be interested in good Government, not Nationalism.

Claim 6: A Parliament is required to make a "bonfire of the quangos".

This demand is no longer being made by the Assembly, but by others who still believe that the original commitment outlined above should be kept. We all understand why the Assembly is remaining quiet on this issue.

The demand of all the political parties who campaigned for a "Yes" vote was that the creation of an Assembly would result in the abolition of not one or two quangos, but every one -- in fact, a "bonfire of the quangos". This, as we are all aware, was the main reason given for a Welsh Assembly.

Four years later, there are still as many quangos as when the Assembly came into being. Indeed, the situation is even worse, with the formation of bigger and more powerful quangos like ELWa.

The Assembly needs to explain why they are not using the powers they already have to abolish the non-executive quangos.

The Assembly, while also making the commitment to abolish executive quangos, does not in reality have the legal powers to achieve this end. Not that such powers would be necessary, because their abolition could be achieved by a one sentence Bill in the UK Parliament.

A Bill of similar length could have been introduced to make a bonfire of both executive and non-executive quangos and thus making an Assembly unnecessary. In fact, leadership of the Assembly shows no interest or support for a "bonfire" and are quite willing for Wales to be a "quango state".

Indeed, they have learned to love rule by quango and are now concentrating their efforts on making them more powerful. A classic but disastrous example of this is the creation of ELWa, which was described by a civil servant and quoted by Professor Kevin Morgan as "the mother of all quangos".

The "Yes" campaign were obviously aware that while the Assembly would have the powers to abolish the non-executive quangos, they did not have similar powers to make a bonfire of the executive quangos. The claim was therefore a cheap publicity stunt in order to persuade people to vote "Yes" in the referendum campaign.

I find it quite ironic that many of those demanding additional powers for the Welsh Assembly are the very same people who are now disassociating themselves from their original commitment to "make a bonfire of the quangos" -- the reason they gave for the creation of an Assembly.

Edwina Hart AM now informs us that she "never favoured bonfires", while Nationalist AM Janet Davies now believes that "we should not have a reflex action to get rid of all Assembly sponsored bodies". Former AM Ron Davies, who I believe was the first to use the phrase "bonfire of the quangos" now describes it as just a "colourful phrase" and while the Institute of Welsh Affairs expresses the opinion that the "Welsh National Assembly had a big impact on the former Welsh quangos, corralling and disciplining them".

It is about time the Institute of Welsh Affairs removed its blinkers, or faced up to reality and admitted that the commitment was not to "corralling and disciplining" the quangos, but to abolish them. The "impact" of the Assembly on this promise has not been "big", but a total failure and the Institute of Welsh Affairs should be honest enough to admit it.

Other than a "bonfire of the quangos", the other claim made by Ron Davies and supported by the "Yes" campaign was the £20 million would amply fund a democratically elected and accountable Welsh Assembly and with a lot to spare. This money would be raised as a result of making a "bonfire of the quangos".

This claim was as ridiculous as their other commitment to make a "bonfire of the quangos". Indeed, this money will obviously not be sufficient to "fund an accountable and democratic Welsh Assembly", or even the construction of the buildings and the cynics may claim not sufficient to pay for the architectural, legal and other similar costs.

The ridiculous claim that £20 million would fund the Welsh Assembly was highlighted by Jim Pickard in the Financial Times (8/3/02) when he revealed that "Government Officials have admitted that the annual running costs of the Welsh Assembly are now £148 million, more than double the £72 million spent in the last year of the Welsh Office ... The revelation makes a mockery of New Labour's claim in 1997 that Welsh Devolution would only cost an extra £15 - £20 million a year .... in 1997 Ron Davies, then Welsh Secretary, said these increased costs would be made up for by a reorganisation of the Welsh quangos. Given that one quango -- the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation -- has been wound up, it could be argued that quango running costs have barely fallen in real terms .... Kevin Morgan, the Cardiff Professor, who ran the "Yes" campaign for devolution, admitted that the increase had not been predicted ..."

The situation is getting even worse, with the cost of the Welsh Assembly rocketing. Paul Starling, Political Editor of the Welsh Mirror (3/5/02) revealed that "the National Assembly has taken on a staggering 640 civil servants since it was created three years ago... Costing Welsh taxpayers an extra £35 million a year".

Linked to this, the South Wales Argus (7/3/02), reporting on the new health quangos, stated that, "Paying the chairmen and women of Wales new Local Health Boards will cost three times the amount for employing those in the same posts at the five existing Health Authorities ... The difference casts doubt on the assertion by Assembly Health and Social Services Minister, Jane Hutt, and NHS Wales Director, Ann~ (REMOVE)Lloyd, that the controversial restructuring of the service in Wales would be cost neutral ... But Mrs Lloyd admitted, during these wranglings, that the restructuring had not been accurately costed".

Linked to this, if we really are serious in wishing to devolve power, then as previously promised many of these quangos would be transferred to Local Authorities. Indeed, this would be one way of ensuring that the views of the former Tory Minister, Nicholas Ridley, never became a reality, when he argued the local authorities should "meet once a year, award the annual contracts and then go home".

Once again, you do not need to create a Welsh Parliament to transfer many of these powers from the Welsh Assembly to Local Authorities, as this goal can be achieved with the present Assembly powers.

I note that no Commission is being set up by the Assembly to examine how this transfer of responsibilities to Local Authorities could be achieved. This highlights what I have always believed, that the Assembly are obviously only in favour of devolution of powers when they are the beneficiary. This also shows that the creation of the Welsh Assembly was more about Nationalism and not the best way of devolving power.

Claim 7: It will lead to Wales determining more decisions while still not going down the separatist road.

Many of those who at the time of the referendum were arguing the case that the powers set aside for the Assembly were sufficient, were immediately after the campaign rubbishing their own proposal and describing the case for additional powers as "unanswerable". This seems remarkably similar to the rhetoric of Thatcher's "No alternative".

One would have thought they would have been humble enough to concentrate on using more effectively the powers they already have, before demanding additional powers; perhaps even using those powers in a way in which the general public finds acceptable, relevant to their lives and in keeping with their earlier promises.

However, I am still not surprised by the call by a minority for the creation of a Welsh Parliament.

Were we expected to believe, for example, that the Nationalists would have supported an Assembly, a half-way house, without later demanding further powers? To do so would have been equivalent to signing their own death warrant. Surely, it should have been recognised that while celebrating the arrival of the Assembly, they would still press for a Parliament and their ultimate goal of separatism from the rest of the United Kingdom.

If anyone doubts the Nationalists' demand for a separatist Wales, then all one needs do is to examine their history and indeed their most recent Assembly Election Manifesto. Here they demand "self-government" which Cynog Dafis once described as "the status that used to be called independence". Indeed in the 1987 General Election Manifesto, the now Lord Dafydd Elis Thomas, their leader from 1984 to 1991, demanded "an independent Welsh Government answerable only to the people of Wales. This is our aim". Indeed, this was also seemingly the view of Dafydd Wigley, whose photo adorned the manifesto and who has also put forward a demand for "Wales to be a member of the European Union in our own right".

Were we also expected to believe that the Liberal Democrats would be satisfied with an Assembly, when they too were committed to a Parliament?

Were we expected to belive that the vast majority of Labour AMs would also be satisfied with an Assembly? Amongst other reasons, in their quest for more status and to be taken more seriously, it was obvious that they too would demand additional powers, as did so many who were elected to the European Parliament, while totally opposing that institution.

Claim 8: A Parliament is required to meet the needs of problems particular to Wales.

Setting aside issues like terrorism in Northern Ireland, the problems faced by the people in the UK are remarkably similar and where there are differences they are not normally based on or in national boundaries. More often than not, the issue is instead one of class, which is no respect of boundaries. Someone experiencing poverty in South Wales has economically more in common with someone facing similar deprivation in London than someone who shares the same nationality, lives in the same country but who is incredibly wealthy.

We must divorce ourselves from the politics based on national boundaries, which are often drawn up as a result of wars and instead concentrate on shared principles, ideals and conditions. The latter is the internationalism representing the best in the Labour Movement, while the former is merely pandering to Nationalistic yearnings.

Why therefore should Wales require a Parliament to deal with its so-called "special" problems, when in fact they are shared by others in the UK whose main difference is one of geography.

Claim 9: We do not need a referendum to endorse the establishment of a Welsh Parliament.

As only one in four of the population voted for an Assembly, this does not show any faith in this institution, yet it was still recognised that a referendum was necessary to establish this body. A referendum would therefore also be necessary to create a Parliament, which is a totally different body.

If in the future there should be such a referendum on the proposal to establish a Welsh Parliament, then I also believe an additional question should be added to the ballot paper, that is as to whether we wish to scrap this institution altogether. As more than one referendum was necessary to obtain a Welsh Assembly, there should be no objection to an opportunity being provided through another referendum to abolish this institution.

Lord Richard

It was a bit of a lecture, if I may say so. Put it this way: it was not the basis for a frank exchange of views. There are two things I must say: one is that the idea this committee is partial already is wrong. The views of the people of this commission are still in the process -- you can smile as much as you like but I tell you what it is; you may not like it, but I say it -- the views of people on this commission are firstly diverse; secondly, they are not fully formed; and thirdly, we have to listen to an enormous amount of evidence on this issue and, with respect, just to come along and lecture us as to what the Assembly should or should not do is not the perhaps the most helpful thing that this commission has heard.

You have had 25 minutes --

Llew Smith

Is that too long?

Lord Richard

No, but it does lead to the second point: there is a great deal in your piece of paper which I, frankly, would wish to consider. I am not prepared to enter into a dialogue with you this afternoon on the basis of a paper which I have not seen, which I have only just listened to. So what I would suggest is that you leave us with a copy of the paper. We will have a look at it and perhaps you could come back, if necessary, at some convenient moment so that we can discuss it, because you cannot come along this afternoon and expect a rational sensible discussion on the basis of a 25-minute speech which was full of detail and none of us have had the opportunity to consider.

Llew Smith

If I can take the points one by one. I do not regard a commission which is set up by the First Secretary, knowing the First Secretary's opinion, to be independent --

Lord Richard

He did not pick them. With respect, this is very important, he did not pick the members of this commission. There is no point you shaking your head, I was responsible for it. I went through a Nolan type procedure and this is the result of it. It is not true that the First Secretary picked the members of this commission, so let us get that clear right at the outset.

Llew Smith

Who picked the Chairman?

Lord Richard

I was appointed by Rhodri; of course I was. I see, so I am partial. Is that what you are telling me? You are telling me I am partial?

Llew Smith

You seem to be posing the question and then answering it. You pose the question.

Lord Richard

With respect --

Llew Smith

You pose the question. Are you partial or what have you? I would say, "yes", but the same criticism you could direct to me. If I had been a member of the Commission I would be coming to that commission with fairly set views on most of the issues which we are debating today. That is the point -- that is the first one. Then you say you do not think I would expect some kind of off the cuff comments to the kind of lecture which I have delivered. Well, I have just travelled 150 miles in the belief that not only was I going to deliver a paper but there would be a discussion following that paper. No one told me that in order to have a discussion I would first of all have to submit a paper. If that would have been necessary then I suggest it should have been done.

Lord Richard

Mr Smith, nobody knew you had a paper of that size. Why on earth did you not just circulate it? If you circulated it to the Secretariat we would all have had a chance to look at it and have a sensible discussion about it.

Llew Smith

I certainly delivered a paper like this to the Labour Movement. I may be old-fashioned, but if I come out with a statement like this I deliver the statement to the organisation through the Labour Party, so every branch in Wales, constituency parties, local organisations, had this information prior to the day. That, in my opinion, is the right way to go about it.

Lord Richard

I am sorry, I cannot agree.

Llew Smith

I find it quite amazing that such experienced people cannot now raise issues, cannot pose questions when I in turn have put so many statements forward. I find that quite amazing.

Lord Richard

I want to look at it.

Llew Smith

So be it, and leave it at that.

Lord Richard

All right. I want to look at the paper before we enter into a discussion. I do not think that is at all unreasonable in view of the length of paper.

Paul Valerio

I must admit, I found it very interesting. I certainly have an open mind and I find that on a lot of the points you were making I share similar views, but I think you are the first witness who has condensed a lot of material in one go and it is difficult for people such as myself to be able to come back and elaborate on it further.

If we take, for example, the points which we have, we have an Assembly. You say that we should have an open referendum, if we have other referenda possibly to abolish it, and that is something perhaps we could discuss a bit further, but given that many people have given evidence to the effect that, "Well, it is here, it has to be made to work successfully", if you accept that -- I am not suggesting you should accept it, but if you accept that -- we then have to determine whether in fact extended powers such as the so-called jagged edges indeed should be tidied up. Most people would concede that should be, just to make it more logical and practical, or whether in fact we should take it to the very beginning really or because of the way that the whole thing was set up it is a complete and utter waste of time. If we were to accept that we would just then not get anywhere. So it may well be as well if we did have time to study it in detail and to have another meeting because I do not think any other witnesses presented the argument that you have presented in such a fashion, and I think your argument demands and should have a greater in depth discussion.

Llew Smith

You have articulated your ideas in an intelligent way which is relevant to the issues, in my opinion. But, as I said, if among all these experienced politicians none of them have the ability to actually cross-examine me, well, you know, that is -- the Chairperson has decided that, and I assume the rest of you will fall in line with the Chairperson --I think that is staggering, but I leave the meeting with that, and I will pass on some copies.

Lord Richard

If you had done that earlier, Mr Smith, we could have had a sensible discussion this afternoon.

Llew Smith

You have your problem; I am leaving.

Ted Rowlands

It is just important there are two people appointed by Rhodri Morgan; the first was the Chairman and I am the second, just for the record.