| 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 naïve enough to believe that
the Commission is impartial, with their conclusion almost
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 cast 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.
Votes Received
Seats Allocated
Plaid Cymru
167,653 (19.7%)
7
Conservative
162,725 (19.2%)
10
Liberal Democrats
108,013 (12.7%)
3
Labour
310,658 (36.6%)
0
Total 20
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 table shows, after polling 36.6%
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 and
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 P.R. 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% 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%. 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 was 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 reasons,
including, it may be argued, mainly the commitment to
"make a bonfire of the quangos."
Personally speaking, I have not experienced 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."
(20/05/03).
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 U.K.
(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 N.H.S.
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?
How 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 institutions 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 everyone – 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, the 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 A.M. now informs us that she "never favoured
bonfires."
While nationalist A.M. Janet Davies, now believes that
"we should not have a reflex action to get rid of all
Assembly sponsored bodies."
For A.M. Ron Davies, who I believe was the first to
use the phrase "bonfire of the quangos," now describes
it as just a "colourful phrase."
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."
Its about time the Institute of Welsh Affairs removed
its blinkers, or faced up to reality and admit, 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.
Other than a "bonfire of the quangos," the other claim
made by Ron Davis and supported by the "Yes" campaign,
was that £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 £20m 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 millions 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 six hundred
and forty civil servants since it was created three
year ago…. Costing Welsh taxpayers an extra £35
million pounds 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 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 believe 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
needs of problems particular to Wales
Setting aside issues like terrorism in Northern Ireland,
the problems faced by the people in the U.K. 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 respecter 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 U.K. 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.
|
