| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have appealed to almost every hon. Member who has spoken. Hon. Members must speak to the amendment. What the hon. Gentleman is saying has nothing to do with the amendments. We are talking not about accountability to a party, but about representation and how many seats there should be. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could examine the amendment.
Mr. Swayne: Thank you, Mr. Martin. The amendment would increase the quantity of inadequate representation and would, therefore, give the assembly, from its inception, a democratic deficit.
Mr. Rogers: In opposing the amendments, I congratulate my party on introducing its proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said that there would be conflict if two Members represented one constituency.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rogers: May I speak first? That is the trouble with these gogs.
I have thought seriously about what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said. At the beginning, I went along with him, but, on reflection, I believe that his fears may be unjustified and that the two representatives will find a method of working together.
When I was a Member of the European Parliament-- the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), will remember this example--the Davignon plan on steel production was introduced. The European apparatchiks decided to reduce the amount of steel production in this country and the Tory Government decided to cut it over and above what the European Commission had suggested. That introduced both a Westminster and a European dimension to the discussion. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will graphically remember, there were differences between the Members of the European Parliament and hon. Members, but progress was made.
We must remember that, with these amendments, we are talking about constitutional development. This country's constitutional development has been dynamic. If there are points of conflict, they are often the areas where there is more dynamism and where there can be change. On reflection, therefore, the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney may not be justified, although I imagine that there will be people with small minds who do not particularly want to act in the interests of the people they represent and who will look for that democratic extra in all situations, which does their electors a disservice.
I have criticised some of the Labour party's proposals on the government of Wales for sincere and specific reasons, but it ill behoves Opposition Members to criticise the Labour party. Whether they agree with its proposals or not, what is proposed is a dramatic step forward in the government and constitutional development of this country.
We have had discussions in the Labour party. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) talked of old Labour. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I like to consider myself classic Labour rather than old Labour. As a democratic party, we have differences of opinion. There was an extensive debate in the Labour party on proportional representation and the number of seats that should be in the assembly, which the amendments address--I mention them before you bring me back to order, Mr. Martin--and we came up with proposals.
The Tories never did. In fact, if the Tories had not mismanaged Wales for 18 years, we would never have had this Bill. As for the Liberals, they were never in favour of such a proposal when they were in power. It was only after they lost power that they wanted proportional representation. Plaid Cymru would catch at any old straw. It is a rag-bag of political ideas--a little bit of this and a little bit of that--and contains the odd journeymen of Welsh politics who box and cox for any position.
The Labour party has made specific and clear suggestions. I do not particularly believe in the extension of proportionality, but it is an honest position. I am going to support it because it is the only game in town. It also has some distinct advantages.
My reservations about the conflicts that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said might arise were wiped out as he developed his argument and I considered the situations that he spoke of.
Under the system proposed in the Bill, there will be points of conflict in matters such as education, housing and transport and in the division of the budget--the dispersal of moneys to local authorities. We have not introduced to the equation how local councillors will fit in with their assembly man or woman, Member of Parliament and Member of the European Parliament.
Opposition Members are always bleating about democratic accountability. They will have it coming out of their ears in three or four years' time--it will be pouring out of Wales--so I do not understand why they want to amend decent proposals from Labour Members.
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole):
I oppose amendment No. 19A. The law of diminishing returns would apply to the assembly. The greater the number of politicians representing Wales, the worse representation people will get: constituents will not get the representation that they deserve.
The creation of another two Members in each multi-Member area would multiply the problems caused by the Bill. As the Bill stands, a constituent with a problem will have a choice: to write to their Member of Parliament--who already represents fewer electors than an hon. Member from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, perhaps 56,000 electors--to write to their Member of the European Parliament, to write to the assembly Member for their constituency or to write to four other assembly Members with some interest in their constituency. Amendment No. 19A would increase the number in the latter group from four to six. The law of diminishing returns would apply. The biggest problem that most assembly Members will have when a constituent comes to see them with a problem will be working out whether the constituent has come to see them only or whether he or she has written to other assembly Members and who else has taken up the case.
We all know from experience that some people come to a Member of Parliament when they have tried everyone else or when they have tried neighbouring Members of Parliament. Sometimes their problem is insoluble. Some individuals in Wales may be given a wonderful opportunity. If the Bill is passed as it stands, such people could visit seven individuals with their problems; if amendment No. 19A is passed, they could visit nine individuals. That is a gross over-representation.
Mr. Ron Davies:
While the hon. Gentleman is reflecting on democratic accountability, will he explain how he feels about the present system, in which about one third of a budget of £7 billion is accounted for by the unelected quango state, in which about 100 unelected public bodies, known as quangos, are entirely immune from accountability and scrutiny and in which nearly 1,000 people are appointed to quangos by the Secretary of State without accountability or scrutiny? While the hon. Gentleman is reflecting on how disgruntled constituents should seek redress in a democratic system, will he explain how they can get redress in the present undemocratic system?
Mr. Syms:
The argument that I was making had more to do with the structure of the system--the number of representatives. If we had a first-past-the-post system--an issue which the House disposed of yesterday--we would have fewer problems with accountability and fewer
The key point is that one must look at any constitutional proposal as much from the point of view of ordinary constituents as from that of political parties and Westminster institutions.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills):
I am astounded by the Secretary of State's extraordinarily denigratory regard for his fellow hon. Members from Wales. They are directly accountable to the constituencies. If he felt that it was appropriate, all those powers could be exercised by Welsh Members of Parliament and there would be direct accountability to the electorate for the disposal and dispersal of those powers. I do not understand the point of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention.
Mr. Syms:
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and return to opposing amendment No. 19A. If I did not, the Committee would not make progress.
Mr. Davies:
For the sake of accuracy, let me make it clear that I was making no criticism whatever of hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. My criticism was of the system and of previous Secretaries of State, who have wielded an enormous power of patronage in a way that was unacceptable, bordering on the corrupt. Our parliamentary system has proved inadequate in hauling those to account.
Mr. Syms:
I thank the Secretary of State for his further contribution.
An increase from seven to nine in the number of representatives from multi-Member areas would diminish the quality of representation because Members who represent constituents will fall over one another's feet trying to tackle similar problems and to take up problems with civil servants and local government. I do not believe that the quality of representation will improve if the number of Members increases. If I had a choice--which I do not--I would have reduced the representation in terms of additional Members, but the Committee disposed of that matter yesterday.
The key point is that accountability will be confused in some areas. Although hon. Members have said that it is up to the good will of the Members who represent an area to work together where possible--I am sure that there is a good local interest in representatives from particular areas having conventions to work together--there will be a great deal of confusion, which will diminish representation.
In the nature of the system that will be produced, different political parties will represent different areas. Although that will give diversity--and perhaps competition, which would be a good thing in one or two parts of the Principality--it will cause problems in terms of Members dealing with constituents.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |