| Question 1
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.
Dr John Cox
Consultant Engineer
|
| The Assembly should have complete control of Welsh affairs, including
legislation and tax raising. However, certain matters,
for entirely practical reasons, should be reserved to
Westminster - Defence, foreign affairs, custom duties
and VAT. It should be within the power of the Assembly
to accept or reject Westminster legislation and to put
forward Bills for Westminster to consider in certain cases
(and Westminster should NOT be able to refuse to find
time for them). While foreign affairs and perhaps other
matters might be in London hands, Wales should have the
right of veto.
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.
D.C.Sage
|
| "Why extend the powers when 40 MPs can do the same job?
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
- In the referendum and the attitude/apathy of their
actions on polling days
- 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
2nd vote disenfranchises people (the electorate
– the people who really matter).
The above figures make a mockery of the 2nd
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."
Tony Wilkins
|
