Commission on the Powers and Electoral Arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales

5th Public Meeting held at Newport Thursday 22 May 2003

Record of Written Questions And Opinions

1) We are all aware that Wales has fewer Assembly Members relative to the electorate than Scotland or Northern Ireland. I am not sure of the reasons for this. I believe it was suggested that, because Scotland's Parliament has more powers, they needed more members. However, my experience is that the workload is greatest for those close to but not having executive authority. Has the Commission undertaken any study of the relative workloads of the Ministers in Wales and Scotland? My impression is that those in Wales have the greater workload and need (as in Scotland) at least one Deputy Minister for every Minister. Does the Commission have a view on this?

Related to the same point, it has been said that good government needs a strong opposition in front and a strong backbench behind. Does the Commission have any opinion on the current ratio of "Ministers" to backbenchers. Bearing in mind that several additional Governing party AMs are nominated as "Committee Chairs", is the Commission concerned that the powers of 'patronage' (I've used a small "p") are disproportionately high?

2) Voter apathy

There are many contributory reasons for the low turnout and I won't make any claims that one reason is overriding. However I do think the voting system is partly to blame. Where I live, the same political party has controlled the Council(s) and been represented at Westminster for 80 years. As many as one-third of the Councillors are normally unopposed. With first-past-the-post elections, there is absolutely no pint in voting here because the result is a foregone conclusion. In practice, the same is true for at least 30 of the 40 constituency seats.

The regional list elections do not solve this problem. Here you vote for a party and have even less say over the individuals elected. Very few people, including the regional AMs, seem to know what they are supposed to do as regional AMs (as AMs, yes, they do know their role).

In my opinion, the obvious way to overcome these problems is to use STV. I won't argue the case in full on Thursday as I have been asked by the Parliament for Wales campaign to do so at a later date. However, just on the issue of voter apathy,

a) with STV in multi-member constituencies, there are NO safe seats and, even in Blaenau Gwent, there would be a genuine contest for at least the last seat,

b) all AMs would have constituencies and constituency responsibilities.

c) voters have a choice of personalities, who they can relate to, as well as parties

3) Simplicity

I think every independent observer is agreed that the two-vote system has proved confusing to the voters. Unless someone wants to argue that the Irish are smarter than the Welsh, there can be little doubt that STV is simpler than the present arrangements and (as I may have to demonstrate later), much more flexible and fairer than the present fixed-size constituencies for FPTP.

• Why does WAG need new tax raising powers when it already raises taxes by giving less to Local Authorities and leaving them to increase Council Taxes to cover the shortfall?
• Is the Commission aware that, even with the secondary powers WAG has that this causes problems with the differences for border areas. We have a long, not well-defined border with England and people from both sides use the services of the other. One example is choice of GP.

The current system of election could be improved: some form of the single transferable vote, a requirement that all parties should put up a significant list of alternative candidates (as used to be done in the Soviet Union), there should be a write-in facility for voters to nominate and vote for other people not officially listed. A larger Assembly might be an advantage but I would suggest that we do not need anything like the number in Westminster - 100 or very few more.

There should be a separate Welsh Civil Service, fewer in numbers and far less byzantine than the UK one.

There should be some form of electronic voting, which would enable referendums on all major issues. Further, a reasonable number of citizens should have the right to requisition a referendum on any motion they thought important and the result should be binding on the WAG.

I would hope to see an early revision of Welsh Local Government resulting with a return to the smaller councils of the past, and very many functions such as education, libraries, transport etc. handed over to separate elected boards covering large areas of Wales or perhaps even all Wales.

In the longer term, I see no reason why Westminster should continue as a parliament. All-Britain affairs could well be handled by committees or by joint sessions of our Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, whatever bodies the English might adopt and perhaps even the Irish parliament and the Cornish one. Modern communications have largely eliminated the need for physical travel to conferences.

One suspects that the European movement has passed its peak and that we shall see a swing away from the all-Europe rule. Some of the objections to our national rights of self-determination will therefore lose their weight. Accordingly, we should hope f or our own distinctive institutions and our own chosen code of laws to emerge.

As the Assembly matures as a full governing body, we should think whether it needs a second chamber. My view is that a second chamber is needed to regulate, to advise and moderate. Everything that Plato said about democracy still holds good. Although it is morally the necessary option, it has its dangers and needs some checks, of which a written constitution, a regulating body and also a constitutional court are the most obvious.

To have one elected body supervising another seems illogical. The Americans stumbled into that solution for their Senate and it seems to work moderately well for them but then, they were carried along by a wave of resentment against the hereditary principle. That was an historical accident. In fact, hereditary principle is not at all a bad way of selecting people in that it means they are completely outside the ordinary political system. Alternatives include random selection (which would throw up a fair number of people with totally unsuitable backgrounds) and ex officio appointment. The great landowners and the old princely houses are an almost extinct resource so my vote would go for an ex officio second chamber, including people like religious leaders, university Vice Chancellors, Trade Union Leaders, the CBI, sports representatives, consumer bodies and the like. Particularly prof. Of Philosophy and Welsh History.

Perhaps we should leave the constitution and the constitutional court for now.

We should touch on the need for a President though. As long as there is a U.K. which we have to assume, the Queen or King of England will have to remain the ultimate sovereign. However, as we saw years ago, we can still have, and I suggest need, our own Head of State here. The old princely house s are very faded now so perhaps the best recourse would be Presidents elected by and from the upper house for a set period.

You will meet, particularly in Newport, a very vocal group calling for the abolition of the Assembly. If you analyse their position you will see there are two strands in it. First there are a lot of first, second and even third generation English immigrants who simply cannot accept that they have crossed the border into another country and have no loyalty to Wales at all (much the same as you find with Russians in the Baltic States). Secondly, there are very many people who have just lost all faith in politics and dislike all politicians and all forms of government, Politicians and the media always try to picture that as a failure of communication and want to correct it by making politics more "sexy". That is nonsense or deceit. In fact the popular response is quite sensible. There is a genuine failure of democracy, It has been replaced by a system that has the outer trappings of democracy but is in fact a system in which those who have the knack and the inclination can exercise power over others.

What we need is, paradoxically perhaps, on the one hand a return to real democracy, which modern communications make far more available than it has been since the citizens of Athens could all meet in a field, and the other hand a proper set of constitutional machinery whereby the excesses and faults of democracy can be regulated and to which the citizen can appeal when he fears elected tyranny.

Why extend the number of AMs when discussion is about where monies should be spread around Wales?

20 regional seats should be abolished. It only serves rejected individual aspirations to another chance of gaining a seat".

The power of the Assembly and its limitations has widely been condemned by the people of Wales

1. In the referendum and the attitude/apathy of their actions on polling days
2. The Welsh nationalists who advocate more powers. Self government was clearly rejected at the polls.

PR will not enhance the fundamental issues in Wales. It is irrelevant to the needs of the people. PR serves minority groups who seek nothing more than self interest.

Political parties show whats on offer on polling days hence the electorate show their approval or lack of it.

No Commission can expect to arrive at a conclusion without the consensus of the whole electorate.

The facts speak for themselves:

LABOUR 75,522

CONS 34,231

P.C. 21,384

LIB 17,661

2^nd vote disenfranchises people (the electorate – the people who really matter).

The above figures make a mockery of the 2^nd vote. Labour did not gain an extra seat in spite of a massive majority.

Clearly the electorate in Wales massively supports no extra powers, no self government, no extra seats, and abolish the list seats."