| LORD RICHARD: Good morning.
Thank you very much for coming, we are very grateful to
you. The procedure we have been adopting with most witnesses
is to ask them in effect to give a five minute or so introduction
and then we can follow up whatever points it is the Commission
might think appropriate. For the sake of the record, could
you just formally identify yourself. |
| MR DAVID: Wayne David, Member
of Parliament for Caerphilly. Thank you very much indeed
for finding the time to take evidence from me this morning,
I am extremely appreciative. I think the work that you
are doing is of tremendous importance and I think that
view is held by people up here as well as back in Cardiff
and Wales generally. |
| Could I begin by saying that my support for
devolution, my strong support for devolution, grew out
of my practical experience as a Member of the European
Parliament for some ten years. I saw at first hand how
in most Member States of the European Union there are
well established, albeit varying, forms of devolution
taking place. I think the idea of a Europe of the Regions,
small nations, is one which is well entrenched in the
European political culture. I think those regions which
do have well established forms of devolution tend to be
countries with successful economies as well as dynamic
and diverse cultures. That experience, combined with my
experience in Wales of the proliferation of unaccountable
government, the so-called quango state, coming together
made the case for me very forcefully for the need for
a new form of government. |
| However, my comments here today really are
from two separate and distinct perspectives. Firstly,
the experience I had working for the Youth Service in
that interregnum between when I was a Member of the European
Parliament and when I was elected here to Westminster
and, secondly, my experience since 2001 as a Member of
Parliament. |
| Could I say, first of all, that I worked for
the Youth Service for the best part of two years basically
as an education advisor and my main brief during that
time was to follow through the Welsh clauses of the Learning
and Skills Bill 2000, especially those which effectively
empowered the National Assembly to create a new Youth
Service in Wales. More specifically those clauses enabled
the National Assembly to introduce a statutory obligation
on local authorities in Wales to provide services for
young people on the basis of partnership between the voluntary
youth sector and the maintained youth sector. It was seen
at the time as an alternative to the new Connexions service,
which was being introduced in England. |
| After the successful passage of that legislation
I played some modest role in helping the Youth Service
prepare for the implementation of that legislation and
saw what was happening with regard to the drafting of
secondary legislation. |
| The points I would like to make which came
home to me out of that experience were, firstly, how very
little discussion actually took place in the House of
Commons and the House of Lords about that legislation.
Welsh members, even in Committee, did not to any great
extent really focus on the provisions of these very important
all-Wales clauses. It was because of that that, with the
Wales Youth Agency, I organised a briefing session for
Members of Parliament, and Mr Ted Rowlands came along
to that, and we had a very, very good discussion. It seemed
to me throughout the whole passage of the legislation
that there was very little debate being generated internally
inside Westminster, the pressure was coming from outside.
I have to say too I think there was very little genuine
appreciation amongst National Assembly Members about what
the legislation actually meant for Wales and for the Youth
Service and there was little realisation about how radical
what was actually being introduced was. There were exceptions,
of course, as far as the First Secretary, Alun Michael,
Rhodri Morgan and, of course, Jane Davidson, who had a
very deep and profound appreciation of what was being
suggested. |
| I think that that whole experience certainly
brought home to me how at that time at least there was
something of a chasm between what was happening in practice
and what Members of the Assembly and Members of the Commons'
perceptions were of what was happening or was not happening. |
| My second perspective comes from my time as
a Member of Parliament. I followed fairly closely the
Health (Wales) Bill. That Bill, again, is of some significance
in constitutional as well as practical terms. It expands
the role of Community Health Councils, it establishes
two statutory bodies for Wales, the Wales Centre for Health
and the Health Professions (Wales). In contrast, I think,
to the Learning and Skills Act, which I referred to, there
has been a high degree of AM and MP involvement in the
pre-legislative and the legislative process and that is
more recently continuing in the Lords as well. The Bill
was proposed by the Welsh Assembly Government, accepted
in principle by the Westminster Government, but very importantly
the proposals went through a pre-legislative scrutiny
stage. It was debated in the Health and Social Services
Committee of the National Assembly and by the Welsh Affairs
Select Committee in this House and I believe they had
joint sessions. It was also debated in more detail in
the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee
and also on the floor of the National Assembly itself,
and after that it went to the floor of the House of Commons
and then proceeded on to the Lords. I think that process
has by and large, although quite long and complex, been
very successful. There has been a high degree of appreciation
of the significance of this Bill. |
| Significantly, too, there have been modifications
to the legislation made during that process, particularly
after the pre-legislative scrutiny stage. The conclusion
I draw from that is I think there are lessons to be learned,
not least the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny but
also the need for AMs and MPs and peers to work closely
together on all devolution legislation. |
| I think that devolution is very much a partnership
arrangement, a partnership between London and Cardiff,
between the two governments here and in Cardiff, but I
also think profoundly it can be significantly improved
with greater backbench Assembly Member and MP involvement.
Certainly up here in Westminster there is a growing acceptance
of the worth of pre-legislative scrutiny and I think that
applies to all legislation, not just that which applies
particularly to Wales. |
| I am slightly concerned, however, that since
the advent of the Welsh Assembly there has been something
of a distance growing between AMs and MPs. I think that
efforts have been made by political parties to bring together
politicians from both Houses but I think it has been spasmodic
and has not really countered the trend which I think is
in evidence now of members increasingly drifting apart
and tending to do their own thing almost in isolation
sometimes from what is happening in the other House. |
| I think that one of the issues that should
be addressed is how we can ensure that members of both
institutions work more closely together. I do not think
it is enough simply to rely on goodwill or even political
parties for that to happen, or, as is often the case,
simply personal relationships. I actually think that relationship
needs to be formalised and institutionalised for it to
be truly effective. |
| I believe that one idea which might be worth
looking at is the creation of a new kind of Welsh Grand
Committee, a Grand Committee which would bring together
Assembly Members and MPs who could then discuss legislation
in its pre-legislative form. I think that would be extremely
useful in a practical sense and would help to counter
that trend which I described earlier of the two institutions
pulling apart. |
| There is also debate going on in the House
of Commons in the European Scrutiny Committee, of which
I am a member, about the growing divide that exists between
the House of Commons and the European Parliament. One
of the suggestions that the European Scrutiny Committee
has made is that there should be a European Grand Committee
bringing together MPs and MEPs. Although we have not secured
agreement for that in the House yet, nevertheless that
kind of practical co-ordination is now taking place for
the first time, I believe, since the European Assembly
was established. I think that is extremely beneficial
and significant. |
| Could I just say, finally, that one of the
big issues obviously which I know the Commission has been
addressing is whether or not the National Assembly for
Wales should have more powers. I would just like to say
something briefly specifically on that. Personally I think
it is important to recognise that the current Devolution
Settlement has validity. It has validity because it was
a manifesto commitment from the party which won power
in 1997 and also, of course, it was subject to a referendum
of the people of Wales. As we all know the referendum
was passed with a very slim majority, nevertheless a yes
vote is a yes vote is a yes vote. I do not think we should
minimise the significance of that. I do not think, quite
frankly, it is valid for any politician to argue that
that prospectus which was put to the people of Wales lacked
any kind of intellectual integrity because it was a compromise
of different views inside the Labour Party in particular.
I think that was a sound proposal that was put to the
people of Wales, it was thoroughly debated and openly
debated and was accepted. I believe that if there is to
be a major re-examination, an extension, of the Devolution
Settlement then the new proposals should be put to the
people of Wales in a fresh referendum. I have to say that
would not be a decision which would be taken lightly by
anyone. |
| The second point I would make is that by and
large I think the Devolution Settlement is working well.
We should not forget that we are in early days. I always
shy away from having any kind of ideological fixation
about the need for having more powers for the sake of
having more powers. My approach to devolution is essentially
pragmatic. What I am concerned about is what works, what
is understood by people and what actually delivers the
kind of policies which I and my party seek to represent.
I noticed in yesterday's Western Mail a report
by Professor Robert Hazell, I think, in which he is very
critical of the Devolution Settlement and is very critical
of the number of items of legislation which have been
enacted by the Westminster legislature. I would say three
things in response to those kinds of arguments. Firstly,
I would stress that devolution is genuinely a partnership
and for any partnership to work there has to be give and
take on both sides. I also think too that devolution does
redefine but in so doing reinforces the partnership between
England and Wales, a partnership which is political, cultural
and economic. I do not think we should be afraid of saying
that. Devolution is not about separation, it is about
having a better form of government. |
| Secondly, I think that there is a clear separation
in the Wales Bill between primary and legislative powers
but I think there is a tendency to forget sometimes just
how significant enabling clauses which are passed in primary
legislation can actually be for the Welsh Assembly. Again,
I refer back to the point I made about the Learning and
Skills Act. That, for example, contained enabling legislation
for the Assembly to restructure the Youth Service as the
Assembly so wanted. I think it is sometimes too simplistic
to make that very crude divide of saying that there is
primary legislation here, secondary legislation back in
Cardiff; the fact is it is more complicated. |
| The third and last point I would make is that
there has been a great deal of focus and debate on legislative
powers but I do not think we should forget the significance
of having devolution on the issue of public expenditure
and the block grant. I think in terms of actually affecting
people's lives that is probably more significant really
than most legislation. |
| Having said all of that, I am not saying,
however, that there should be no change. I think that
we need to recognise the fact that we have a Transfer
of Functions Order under section 22 of the Wales Act is
significant, it has been used on four occasions to date
and there is no reason why it cannot be used more extensively.
I think too there does genuinely need to be a debate about
devolving additional specific powers to the National Assembly.
That debate needs to focus on specific areas, it cannot
be a generalised debate. I do not think that anybody should
shy away from having that kind of specific debate on specific
areas. |
| When all is said and done, for me as a parliamentarian
here, the real challenge is not about changing the Devolution
Settlement, the real challenge is how to make it work
more effectively and hopefully some of my suggestions,
particularly the idea of a new kind of Welsh Grand Committee,
will indeed help the Devolution Settlement be more effective. |
| LORD RICHARD: Thank you very
much indeed. I think that has raised a number of very
interesting points that I know we will want to pursue.
|
| Can I start off by pursuing in effect the
last point that you made which was that the object of
the exercise as you see it is to make the Devolution Settlement
work better but you then go on to say that you think devolution
should take place in specific orders, not just the transfer
of functions, in other words education being the responsibility
of the Welsh Assembly or health being the responsibility
of the Welsh Assembly or the Home Office, prisons should
be. In other words, you would look at it in terms of individual
subject matters and not in terms of powers which somebody
has got at the moment that should be dissolved (?devolved?)
or should be given to the Assembly. That is precious near
revising the whole settlement, is it not? |
| MR DAVID: I do not necessarily
think so, no. There are two issues, as you say. There
is the issue of making the settlement work more effectively
but I do not think that we should disguise the fact that
there is a debate going on about, if you like, revising
some elements of the settlement in key policy areas. I
am saying there are two things taking place in parallel
really. As of this moment I certainly know, for example,
that there is a debate going on about the powers of the
police. I am conscious of the fact that the four police
divisions in Wales have said that they are mindful that
there should be a devolution of at least some powers of
the Home Office to the Assembly with regard to policing.
What I am saying is we should recognise that there is
a debate taking place and listen to the arguments rather
than come to any knee-jerk reaction for or against. |
| My own view as things stand is that is one
area where I do not think the case has been made but I
am saying that nevertheless we should be aware that it
is taking place. I think it would be wrong to see the
devolution process as something that is completely set
in tablets of stone one minute and then completely open
to change the next. We should have a process of ongoing
discussion and we should not be afraid of that. That in
itself is a healthy consequence of devolution. |
| LORD RICHARD: I think that
is absolutely right, it is a question of the form of the
discussion and what the result of the discussion might
be. You probably know that there is a lot of unrest among
the lawyers in Wales about the form of the settlement,
how complicated it is, the fact that it was done by transfer
of functions rather than devolution of subject matter
and the complications that has created. From what you
are saying I take it that you would be in favour, if possible,
of at least revising the form of the settlement so that
it was more directed towards the subjects than it would
be towards individual functions. |
| MR DAVID: In some ways I
think that if you were perhaps approaching devolution
in a different set of circumstances for the first time
the approach could have been slightly different. At the
end of the day it is a political judgement about whether
or not the best approach is to work entirely with what
we have got or to have a more radical departure and have
a greater subject orientation as you are suggesting. I
am not absolutely convinced that the time is right or
the political situation is right for that change to be
made quite frankly. |
| LORD RICHARD: But that is
done in a sense. I take it from what you are saying that
you do not think that there would be much parliamentary
steam in Westminster for a new Government of Wales Act,
to tear the whole thing up and start again with a different
structure? |
| MR DAVID: No. |
| LORD RICHARD: You have got to recognise the
parliamentary problems that there are here in getting
legislation through. If you could turn it to subject areas
rather than devolved powers without having to go through
the whole process up here, you would get a tidier settlement,
would you not? |
| MR DAVID: I think you possibly
would. We may well move towards that in the future. Looking
ahead to this process, I think one of the consequences
of having greater co-ordination and mutual respect between
AMs and MPs is that people might almost naturally move
towards certain conclusions which would lead to precisely
what you are suggesting. My concern, however, coming back
to one of the points I made earlier, is that I think it
would be a retrograde step if we allowed the friendly
rivalry which we have at the moment to extend into sort
of trench warfare because it simply becomes a question
of whether one place holds on to its powers or another
place grabs them rather than looking at what is the best
way forward to achieve certain objectives in Wales. That
is why I think the atmosphere and the climate is so very,
very important before we can have any modest consensus
about what the way forward might be. It is the approach
that is the thing I would like to stress at this stage.
I take a long-term perspective of how devolution might
evolve over the years, it is not a quick-fix. It is that
climate, that understanding, that mutual respect, which
is so very, very important in order to move the debate
on as it inevitably should. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH:
A supplementary to the Chairman's question. You say that
you are a believer, Mr David, in slowly pragmatically
making things work but then you go on to say that you
want to change the public expenditure arrangements which
presumably would be more like the powers of Scotland. |
| MR DAVID: No. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: What
did you mean? |
| MR DAVID: No, I want to keep
what we have got. The point I was making was there tends
to be a great deal of focus in political debate in Wales
on legislative powers, which is understandable, but I
think there tends to be an under-estimation of the significance
of the Devolution Settlement with regard to public expenditure. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH:
In other words, that is really satisfactory? |
| MR DAVID: By and large I
think it is, yes. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH:
But this has been in a climate in which expenditure has
been increasing and increasing. |
| MR DAVID: That is why it
is so very, very important. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH:
But supposing it changes. |
| MR DAVID: Yes. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Supposing
instead of Gordon Brown dishing out money we have a lowering
of the graph, would it work satisfactorily? |
| MR DAVID: Wales should always
get more money, there is no doubt about that. The first
point you make that public expenditure has been increasing
is enormously significant. As I say, an increase in public
expenditure, well and carefully used, will have a much
greater impact upon the lives and the well-being of the
people of Wales, I would suggest, than changes in policy,
changes in legislation. That was the point I was making. |
| The second point is there is also a debate
going on about whether or not the Assembly itself should
have revenue raising powers of one kind or another. It
has been suggested, for example, that as far as the English
regions are concerned there is a very modest suggestion
that the English regions themselves should have some kind
of revenue raising power. That may or may not be the case.
I think the real issue is whether or not the Welsh Assembly
should have tax raising powers. Personally I would be
strongly against that, or certainly I think the case has
not even begun to be made for that, not least because
Wales has got a very, very low tax base. My primary concern
is not about developing abstract concepts of devolution
but developing devolution as a means to bring about policy
which will improve the lives of people. |
| LAURA McALLISTER: Can I ask
you a very fundamental question that concerns something
you said quite early on in your remarks about the burden
of proof for recommendations for change now because you
described some of the justification for the current settlement
and it would be possible to take issue with one or two
things that you said because the referendum itself was
not on the exact proposals that we now have of course,
it was a pre-legislative referendum and there have been
significant changes from the White Paper to the Government
of Wales Act, which I know you are fully aware of. Of
course it does have legitimacy and validity in that it
was a manifesto commitment. I just wonder, and this is
very crucial to us, where does the burden of proof lie
now? Is it with those who are seeking to justify and defend
the current settlement with some tweaks or is it with
those who are suggesting that there needs to be a rather
more fundamental or radical change, possibly in the form
of primary legislative powers or in some other direction?
I would like you to answer in the context of some of the
public opinion shifts that there seem to have been. The
latest polling suggests that a primary legislative body
is more popular than other options at this point in time.
What is your feeling on that question? |
| MR DAVID: I think the case
has to be made for change. My starting point, and most
people's starting point, is we have what we have and if
we are going to alter that the case has to be made for
that change to come about. As far as public opinion is
concerned, I think that it is very difficult to come to
a balanced assessment of where public opinion is. I think
it is very easy to suggest that if people are dissatisfied
with the health service, for example, then if it is put
to them that the way to solve that is for the Assembly
to have more powers they will obviously say yes to that.
I do not think it necessarily means that people are intellectually
or even emotionally committed to having a fully legislative
parliament in Wales. People's consciousness is a long
way from that. I think most people accept that we have
a Welsh Assembly, they want it to be successful, but you
could equally argue, equally unfairly, that there are
a lot of misgivings about the Assembly and a lot of discontent
about how it is functioning. I think much of that criticism
is unfair. It is a huge jump to make from, on the one
hand, recognising people's disaffection with the Assembly
and to say, therefore, obviously it needs to have more
powers, is it not? |
| On this issue perhaps public opinion needs
to be led and nurtured. Yes, things have moved on. I think
few people seriously argue these days for an abandonment
of the Assembly. It is recognised as an institution and
a focus for Welsh life, and that is a huge step forward
in itself. I also think that its First Minister is a popular
figure in Wales and that is important for the credibility
of the institution, that should not be under-estimated.
It is a huge step to then argue that because we have made
that kind of modest progress over the last few years that,
therefore, people feel there is a need for the Assembly
to have huge new powers. I do not think that naturally
follows. |
| LAURA McALLISTER: In a certain
way one could argue that the past four years have been
our equivalent of a constitutional convention. It has
been said to us by some in quite categorical terms that
that has been the case and we did not have any mature
political debate on devolution I would say, and I am sure
you would agree with this, prior to the referendum or
prior to the Government of Wales Act, so in a sense we
have had to learn as we have gone along. We were told
by the Secretary of State at the time that the proposal
was a compromise and that it tagged along with the Scottish
legislation and so on, that it was not anybody's ideal
scenario. This goes back to my original question about
the burden of proof. If nobody was terribly happy with
the original settlement as it was set before us, why are
we in a position where we are struggling to defend it?
Why should the burden of proof not be on those who are
struggling to defend it? That was my original question. |
| MR DAVID: I understand the
drift of your argument but I cannot say I wholly agree
with it. Politics, to use a cliché, is the art of the
possible. Politics always involves compromise, whether
we are talking about inside a political party or between
political parties. However, I think one of the impressive
things about the Government of Wales Bill and Act was
that there was a great amount of genuine consensus in
Wales at the time, inside the Labour Party and between
political parties, and I think there was genuine agreement
that that was a huge step forward. It was not just the
lowest common denominator, I think it was more than that.
For the Secretary of State at the time to argue that it
was anything less than that actually devalues his own
contribution towards achieving that consensus, in fact.
What we have seen operating, despite its complexities,
has been quite impressive. |
| I do accept your point that in Wales there
has not really been a mature kind of debate about constitutional
change. I think that happened for the first time in the
run-up to the referendum and we have to recognise it is
a debate which is continuing. That is why the process
of change will take place incrementally over a period
of time. The only thing I am concerned about is that there
is not a knee-jerk reaction to perceived shortcomings
but a frank and open debate as to how we can go forward
together. That means also, however, that people do not
simply defend the status quo for the sake of defending
the status quo. There are things which can be improved
upon in the legislation but let us have an honest and
frank debate about it and let us not polarise the debate
into ideological factions. |
| HUW THOMAS: I heard what
you said earlier in terms of accepting the fact that at
present some of the ways in which the powers are defined
to the National Assembly are complex and that you felt
there was a need to perhaps simplify a little bit by having
subject areas. I would like to explore a little bit more
on that. From the evidence we have heard, numbers of people
have mentioned that they come against this point in a
particular bit of legislation and the Assembly is then
stuck until primary legislation time can be found for
that to be ironed out, assuming that it cannot be dealt
with by a Transfer Order. I am just wondering what the
framework of that legislation might look like. For example,
if you take the Health Bill that you were referring to,
do you envisage that actually might only be a two clause
Bill going through Parliament saying "The National Assembly
may make such provision as it deems fit for the following
purposes..." and just leave it like that so you widen
the ambit? Is that the kind of thing you had in mind? |
| MR DAVID: I think to some
extent that has been happening. In a sense that was the
point I was making really. That enabling facility which
has been used and which could be more extensively used
is a way, in a sense, to resolve the kind of difficulties
to which you refer. In many ways it is an easier and less
confrontational route to take for some people rather than
simply devolving the whole policy area, to simply have
more clauses in the UK legislation which enables the Welsh
Assembly to pursue its own policies. |
| HUW THOMAS: That still maintains
the relationship though, does it not, that the Assembly
has to rely on Parliament and parliamentary time which
is at a premium? |
| MR DAVID: That is right. |
| HUW THOMAS: Under the present
arrangement where you have a degree of shared agendas
at UK and Wales, Scotland level, you might say that could
be managed. Is the constitutional arrangement that we
have got sufficiently robust to withstand the clash of
different perspectives in Wales and the UK? |
| MR DAVID: My idea of devolution,
which comes out of my political beliefs, is that devolution
is bringing power closer to the people, it is not manufacturing
situations in which you get clashes between legislators
and clashes between nations. That is why I think that
my approach is as it is. I want to see the current arrangement
made more effective. If you take a subject area like education,
for example, the reality of the England and Wales in which
we live is that whilst there is room for divergence from
agreed positions as far as Wales is concerned, I do not
think there is a case to be made out for a completely
different educational system in Wales. Some people would
agree and others would disagree, but that is a political
debate. I am approaching this on the basis that devolution
is about taking England and Wales' principles and modifying
them to Welsh circumstances to address particular needs
in Wales. |
| There is a current debate going on about our
top-up fees, for example, and some people have argued
very strongly that that issue should be devolved to the
Assembly. I think that is a good example of how we should
look at something which is extremely complicated and emotive
in a very detailed and systematic way because there are
all kinds of implications which follow on from any decision
which might be made to devolve that issue. I think that
it would be nice to come forward with neat headlines and
snappy slogans but the situation we are in actually requires
detailed analysis. |
| LORD RICHARD: I do not think
the Commission would be very good at snappy slogans! |
| PETER PRICE: You mentioned
a minute ago that the settlement was not the lowest common
denominator. What would have been the lowest common denominator,
if this was not it, in the context of the establishment
of the Scottish Parliament at the same time with the powers
it was given? |
| MR DAVID: That is a very,
very difficult question. A retrospective, hypothetical
question. |
| PETER PRICE: In practical
terms, what would have been? |
| TED ROWLANDS: An English
Regional Assembly I suppose, that is the lowest common
denominator. |
| MR DAVID: That is probably
right. |
| LAURA McALLISTER: How does
a regional assembly differ from the executive model of
devolution bearing in mind the White Paper on the English
regional system? |
| MR DAVID: Off the top of
my head, thinking back to my reading of the English proposals,
certainly the secondary legislative powers which have
been suggested for the English regions are significantly
less than what Wales currently has. Also, the block grant
arrangement is different as I recall, quite fundamentally
different. I think there are quite profound differences
and, as Mr Rowlands said, in a sense we could have ended
up with a minimalist model which reflected what is being
suggested for the English regions now, that was clearly
a possibility. |
| I was involved in the debate inside the Labour
Party myself at the time about precisely the extent of
legislative powers in particular and I know that debate
jumped from one policy area to another policy area, and
that is the nature of politics. I am not pretending that
there was any great intellectual validity to one particular
argument in one particular meeting, it was an ongoing,
flowing, evolving situation, and that I think applied
right across the political spectrum in Wales. At the end
of the day it was significant that a significant body
of Welsh public life were able to unite around this proposal
and to take it forward. |
| PETER PRICE: I am not going
to pursue that line because there were two very interesting
themes that came out of what you were saying as to where
you want to see the settlement going forward. One was
looking case by case at the possible transfer of functions
and the other was the institutional developments. First
of all, on the transfer of functions you raised one, the
issue of police powers, and implicitly financing, and
then you said you thought there the case has not yet been
made out. |
| MR DAVID: No. |
| PETER PRICE: Where do you
think that things have gone a bit further than the case
not having been made out, that you are at least inclined
to support a move of function? |
| MR DAVID: Again, taking up
the theme I mentioned earlier about pragmatism and practicality,
I think the experience of the foot and mouth crisis certainly
showed that there was scope there for certain powers to
be devolved to the Assembly and possibly the response
of Government could have been better to that crisis if
the Assembly had been empowered to a greater extent than
it was. However, I am not sufficiently a constitutional
expert to say whether or not that requires an extension
of legislative powers or can be done on the basis of Orders. |
| PETER PRICE: But animal health
is something where effectively there is a shared responsibility
at the moment with a lot of the powers in that area already
being with the Assembly but certain of them not. If we
look at something that might be of much greater impact,
is there any area that you can think of where currently
it is largely in the hands of the Home Office or some
other UK ministry where you think that there may be a
good case for transferring? |
| MR DAVID: One of the areas
which springs to my mind is the issue of regional policy,
industrial policy generally. There is a debate which has
started in earnest now about the reform of the European
Union's Structural Funds and Westminster Government has
just issued a paper which argues really for greater flexibility
to be introduced with regard to the use of Structural
Funds and also the implementation of EU State Aids. Within
that debate there is room for greater flexibility to be
given to the regions, the small nations, of the United
Kingdom. For instance, the Bevan Foundation, which some
of you may have heard of, a left of centre modest think-tank,
is about to produce a paper which argues for a number
of policy areas to be developed and I think one of the
things that paper is going to suggest is that there could
be greater flexibility as far as operating aids, as they
are known in technical terms, which would give a facility
to the Welsh Assembly Government to actually intervene
to modify, for example, business tax rates to enhance
the competitiveness of the Welsh economy. Again, I think
that is a very practical debate which we ought to have
and personally I believe there is a lot to be said for
doing that. It certainly happens in different parts of
the European Union and I think there have been instances
of it occurring in Northern Ireland as well. That is one
area that I think would have a big impact on the development
of the Welsh Assembly as something which impacts on people's
everyday lives. |
| PETER PRICE: But it implies
that you would give tax varying as opposed to what you
were talking about earlier, ruling out, seemingly on political
grounds, tax raising powers, which comes down to the same
thing, does it not? |
| MR DAVID: No. I think the
approach to the two areas we are talking about is fundamentally
different. What we are talking about here is an agreement
with the Treasury in the United Kingdom so that Welsh
businesses would have less of a tax burden placed upon
them in recognition of the difficult economic circumstances
in which they are operating in the Welsh economy. |
| PETER PRICE: But is that
not the current situation, the Assembly can always go
to the Treasury now and say "We would like to do this"
and if they have Treasury agreement then it is done? In
other words, the power of what you are now saying would
not be devolved but would rest with the Treasury. |
| MR DAVID: I think of there
being some kind of mechanism so that the collective view
of the Assembly would place central government under some
kind of obligation. I accept that is a difficult concept
to think through and I am not pretending for a moment
I have thought that one through entirely. That is one
area which does need to be looked at very, very carefully.
When we talk about taxation I would be reluctant simply
to argue the case that the Assembly should have powers
to vary those kinds of taxes and also more general taxes
as well. I think there needs to be an understanding that
if the Government in London is talking about having greater
scope to introduce industrial and regional policies outside
of Brussels' influence then the same principle should
apply to the regions and the nations of the United Kingdom
as well. Subsidiarity should be taken down to the region,
the sub-state level. |
| VIVIENNE SUGAR: You said
earlier on that devolution brings power closer to the
people but we have heard a lot of evidence which suggests
that the current form of settlement in Wales means that
Welsh people do not understand where the power lies, but
everybody has got a right to understand their government
because you cannot make an informed opinion at the ballot
box if you do not know who is responsible for what, who
is accountable. I just want you to talk to us about your
experience as a constituency MP. There is a well-known
MP, a well-known AM, and yet I think I would put money
on the fact that you get a lot of people coming to your
surgeries with issues that are devolved and a lot of people
going to the AM about issues that are not. I would like
you to talk a little bit more about that. If we stick
with the current settlement, what more do you think can
be done to get better public understanding of where responsibility
and power actually lies? |
| MR DAVID: What you are saying
is absolutely true. Many of my constituents in Caerphilly
back both horses, if you like, if they have got an issue.
They often go to see Ron Davies and come to see me at
the same time and sometimes try to play us off one against
the other really and try to have healthy competition between
us as to who can help them most. That is not necessarily
a bad thing. |
| One of the things that I think our two offices
at a constituency level agreed after a few months was
that it was inevitable that, for whatever reasons, people
would choose to go to both or one or other of their representatives.
Frankly, it has proved impossible in practice to say to
someone "Sorry, you cannot come to my surgery tomorrow
because your issue is a devolved issue" and vice versa. |
| VIVIENNE SUGAR: Then how
can they judge your performance? |
| TED ROWLANDS: Outcomes. |
| VIVIENNE SUGAR: You are the
witness now, are you? |
| TED ROWLANDS: I apologise. |
| MR DAVID: In a sense the
way devolution has worked out is partly because we have
a Labour Government and a Labour led Assembly people just
think in terms of the party of government. If they have
got a problem, frankly they are not interested whether
it is devolved or not, they simply want the problem solved.
For example, and I am sure Mr Rowlands would agree, nearly
half of the people who come to my surgeries are concerned
about local council issues and half of my constituency
work is focusing on the local authority rather than anything
else and it is exactly the same with the AM as well. In
a sense that reinforces one of the points I was making
earlier, that people are not really obsessed with the
fine detail of the Devolution Settlement, what they are
concerned about at the end of the day is whether or not
they have got good hospitals, short waiting lists, decent
schools and so on. That is why my focus as a politician
is looking at ways in which their desires can be fulfilled.
I am very much outcome driven rather than process driven
by looking at the minutiae in simply an abstract constitutional
sense. |
| PAUL VALERIO: Can I follow
that similar vein with your experience as a post devolution
MP and relationships not simply with your own AM but with
regional AMs. I appreciate that political parties are
likely to be different in that context but one thing that
we have to consider is the numbers game. We may consider
that the Assembly should have more members and if we do
that as to how they should be elected. What sort of experiences
can you give to us that would lead us one way or the other?
Do you feel that the regional lists have too close an
identity with a single constituency, that perhaps a national
list would remove some of that poaching element that exists,
or whether that is something we have to learn to live
with? |
| MR DAVID: I am a firm believer
in first past the post. One of the reasons I am inclined
to support the current arrangements for Assembly elections
is that, of course, the majority of Assembly Members are
elected by the first past the post constituency system
and that system is well understood and well respected
by the electorate. The difficulties in terms of representation
are caused by the regional top-up members in that no-one
identifies, quite frankly, to South Wales Central or South
East Wales, they mean absolutely nothing. I say that as
the former MEP who used to represent one of those former
Euro constituencies. However, I am not so sure it would
be any better if we moved to an all-Wales top-up list.
I suspect not. |
| I think really the strange system that we
have got to achieve a degree of proportionality, and I
will accept the reasons for that, is something we simply
have to live with. In my view there is no ideal model
electoral system, there are even weaknesses with first
past the post, which I support, but I think part of a
mature democracy is to recognise that there are shortcomings
in whatever system we seek to adopt. |
| LAURA McALLISTER: Can you
explain why you support first past the post because I
was going to ask you as a follow-up what you thought of
the STV system? I may be pre-empting your answer. I imagine
it is because of the constituency link and the identity
but STV can also replicate that in some respects. Would
you rule that out as a system on your own preferences? |
| MR DAVID: I take your point
and STV is one of the least objectionable forms of PR.
I still prefer first past the post because, as you say,
there is this constituency link which I think in many
ways is the essence of our parliamentary democracy but
also it is something which is well understood by people.
I think for a democracy to be credible there needs to
be that understanding of the electoral system and support
for the electoral system which clearly first past the
post has got amongst people. I think that is very, very
important. |
| Could I say that I think there is a tendency
often amongst political commentators to devalue the role
of constituency representation. I do not know if Mr Rowlands
would agree but I can make a comparison between how people
relate to me as a Westminster MP and how they related
to me as a Member of the European Parliament and it is
nothing to do with profile in an all-Wales sense, it is
your ability to be rooted in a relatively small geographical
area and your ability to go around and meet people formally,
informally, in pubs, clubs, Women's Institutes and so
on, which really establishes your credibility as a parliamentary
representative. I think the same thing applies to Assembly
Members who are elected on that basis as well. |
| For me, it would be a great shame to move
away from that. Most people I represent I think would
feel uncomfortable about such a move. |
| TED ROWLANDS: Viv rightly
chided me, so I am not going to become a supplementary
witness. I will not be drawn by your last observations.
I found the early part of your evidence an interesting
contrast between the Learning and Skills Bill and the
Health Bill. The Learning and Skills Bill was the one
and only Bill I did in a post-1999 situation. I suppose
the reason why the Youth Agency clauses were not debated
- I was tempted - was that in fact the argument was it
was a done deal, that you had been very successful in
persuading both the Westminster Government and the Assembly
Government to agree this alternative provision to the
English Connexions service. It left backbenchers in a
situation where we were repeatedly told that there was
not much point because the government had done the deal.
Has that happened since? |
| You are saying that the pre-legislative process
has changed that from my experience. The pre-legislative
process is the one that matters, is it? There is a Planning
Bill before the House now with Welsh clauses and say you
wanted to take a sceptical look at them, for example,
would you not be told that, in fact, this was a done deal
between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Secretary
of State and Don Touhig and, therefore, you had not got
any right or reason to knock the clauses around? |
| MR DAVID: You make some good
points, I think. |
| TED ROWLANDS: If that is
the case, does it not rather mean that the legislative
process has been demeaned a bit by it? |
| MR DAVID: I am not here as
a government spokesman. |
| TED ROWLANDS: I know you
are not. |
| MR DAVID: I am here as a
backbench Member of Parliament. I think that one of the
things that needs to be emphasised is the need for greater
backbench involvement. That involvement must mean not
simply being lobby fodder and nodding through the done
deal, as you say, but actually being involved in the legislative
process so that you can have a real effect. That is what
I want to see happening. |
| TED ROWLANDS: I was interested
because your observations prompted my thoughts about our
Scottish visit. We went to Scotland and the Scottish led
Parliament is a unicameral legislature. I think there
are question marks as to whether it has become a sausage
machine and there is concern that there are not sufficient
degrees of scrutiny or effective scrutiny, or there might
not be in the future, as a result of this one and only
time to do it. In a way you are almost describing a curious
new kind of bicameral legislative process by which the
Bill would be worked on at both ends and there would be
also the capacity to have a joint meeting and together
Westminster and the Assembly legislate. How far would
you want to take that? Do you think there could be a justifiable
case for the Assembly initiating a Bill through this process
as much as reacting to a Bill that is coming from the
Westminster end? |
| MR DAVID: In a sense, the
Welsh Assembly Government does initiate things at the
moment. The suggestions initially come from the Welsh
Assembly Government, are talked through, discussed, and
agreement is reached with the Secretary of State for Wales
and then the debate is about finding parliamentary time
and so on. |
| I would make a couple of points. The first
point I would make is the contrast I made between the
two items of legislation was that I think, yes, partly
because it was the early days of devolution, a done deal
was done and the Government was keen simply to enact that
as quickly and as painlessly as possible from its point
of view. If anything, I think that did a disservice to
the Youth Service and the debate that should have taken
place. It is not enough simply to enact legislation as
quickly and as painlessly as possible, it is actually
important to have a debate about it amongst elected representations
and thereby get support for the ideas in that legislation
from the people you represent. I felt in a sense that
did not really happen with that set of clauses. |
| The contrast I made with the NHS (Wales) Bill
was there was a great deal of debate and there was pre-legislative
scrutiny as well. For example, my contact with the Community
Health Council has been very, very positive because they
have followed very closely what has happened to that legislation,
they have fed ideas to myself and other MPs and they really
feel a sense of ownership and that means that the Bill
will be extremely effective and introduce some enthusiasm. |
| What I am saying is although sometimes the
process can be complicated as a consequence, it is worth
making the effort to ensure that there is that kind of
enthusiasm generated behind the legislation and also you
actually get the legislation right. |
| TOM JONES: There is a snag
with that because there is a doubling effect on voluntary
organisations, for example, and unless there is a structure
to it, which means they do have to go through a proper
consultation within the Assembly, they then have to start
again. If they do not do it means you may be less informed
about the process of the Assembly advice. We need to ask
people to provide two briefings, unless the pre scrutiny
happens at the same time and jointly, as you suggested
earlier on. |
| MR DAVID: Absolutely. Coming
back to the earlier point, to ensure this kind of process
works effectively as it could we need to look at structures
which brings together AMs and MPs. Ideas are generated
in a consensual basis between representatives from the
two institutions. Can I make one final point, my concern
is, if I am perhaps excessively blunt, sometimes the approach
towards Welsh legislation being introduced here is, we
will do it as quickly and as painlessly and with as little
fuss as possible and we can move on to something else.
I do not think that is good enough. There needs to be
maximum transparency, openness and co-operation for the
devolution settlement to work as effectively as it could.
That is my main point. |
| TED ROWLANDS: How much political
and parliamentary will is there at this end to make the
whole legislation process of the kind you are describing
work? My own experience is it is pretty jealous of its
sovereignty and all of the rest of it and anything that
smacks of procedural sharing of that sovereignty tends
to be dismissed. Are your thoughts that they would have
a good chance of running here, firstly amongst your Welsh
colleagues and secondly with the Leader of the House and
the powers that be here? |
| MR DAVID: I think it is important
in a political sense to recognise the validity of what
you are saying. One of the reasons why I am a keen advocate
of this greater co-operation and idea share is that I
honestly believe that the devolution settlement will only
be improved and moved on if there is a high degree of
consensus established. The worst scenario would be for
the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government to be pressing
for something very, very strongly, for example, and not
just a Westminster Government, but the overwhelming majority
of Welsh MPs simply to say, "no, are not having it, we
are against it". I think we should do everything we can
to avoid such a situation developing. |
| My concern is that if you simply have a kind
of institutional protectionism then you are not looking
at what is best for Wales and what policies are needed
to bring about effective government, you are simply defending
your own vested interests. That is why, again, I think
it is so important that all of us who believe in devolution
do not allow that entrenchment to take place. There is
actually a greater feeling of unity of purpose developing. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER: You
served in different parliamentary institutions, you know
this one, do you think there is a hope at all of the kind
of things that we suggest, the Welsh Grand Committee meeting
with the National Assembly or the European Grand Committee
would actually be agreed to by the House of Commons, which
has all of the powers in the world but does not use them
because you are kept in order by the whips? |
| MR DAVID: I am an optimist,
if there is a strong case there changes can come about.
Can I just say one other thing, perhaps, finally, my experience
as an MEP has coloured my approach to this issue, as I
said at the start. One of the things that is frequently
in evidence is a negative relationship between the European
Parliament and between Westminster. That is a statement
of fact. It has not got to be like that. There are good
examples of genuine co-operation and partnership in evidence
there. What it requires for that entrenchment to be broken
down is political will. As I say, I think it could happen
in that relationship between the European Parliament and
Westminster, it can equally happen to an even greater
extent than what happens now, I am not saying things have
become entrenched, but we can have that co-operation between
AMs and MPs. In order for that to happen it is not enough
to rely on goodwill, on personal relationships and intergovernmental
co-operation it is necessary to have structures in place
so that back-benchers can work together. |
| PETER PRICE: Can I make a
request, it is not a question, that is that the institutional
part of what you said today would be extremely useful
as a paper if you had an opportunity to work out the detail
and put it down on paper at some point. |
| LORD RICHARD: Why do we not
wait until we see the transcript and if we do not get
it out of the note perhaps you can ask Wayne to produce
the paper. If it is already on record it seems stupid
to ask for that piece of paper. |
| Can I thank you very much indeed, it was very
useful, very helpful. We explored a number of issues that
frankly you can only explore with somebody at the sharp
end, that was what was really important about it. Thank
you very much indeed. |
| MR DAVID: Thank you. |
