| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 398
basic level of understanding of Parliament or representative government. The same applies to the Labour party's proposals for the Upper House and the so-called proportional representation row. We hear a lot of talk, but we are afraid that it will all end in tears at the end of the day.Were Labour Members to be sitting on the existing Government Benches following the next general election, between breaking the vast majority of their spending pledges and running to the International Monetary Fund to rescue the country from the inflationary explosion that they would have set in train, they would plunge this place and the country into a dog's dinner of constitutional argument, late nights, and wasted energy and time, as they did in the 1970s.
If they do not junk that barrowload of rubbish smartish, they will find themselves spending even longer in opposition than they have already spent since they lost office on St. David's day in 1979. One mistake that they do not seem to want to repeat is to hold a democratic referendum, on which the Leader of the Opposition was so insistent from 1975 until 1979. It seems that, today, the Leader of the Opposition is not so minded to trust the judgment of the people of Wales.
6.18 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor) : This is an historic opportunity for the House to consider constitutional reform for Wales. We are in danger of losing this opportunity, and shall not get another chance for a while. It is logical--each part of Government needs executive powers at a European, United Kingdom, Welsh, single-tier authority and community and town council level. That is entirely logical within a federal structure and should be welcomed. The position in which we find ourselves today, with two hours to discuss the entire reorganisation of local government in Wales, is an absolute disgrace.
Mr. Raffan : Does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise that, in view of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the importance of accountability to the House, this debate was not held in Government time over a full day? Is it not surprising that the Government did not do that in view of my right hon. Friend's great belief in the accountability of the Secretary of State to the House? That is particularly true as the document states that all consultation should be finished by 31 October. Should not Ministers tell us whether there will be a debate in the House after we return from the summer recess and before the end of October? There should be such a debate.
Mr. Livsey : I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who is correct in his analysis. This is a totally inadequate way to debate the subject ; we have not been given enough time. The 1974 reorganisation of local government was, at the time, thought to be a great strategic reform. It was thought to be more effective in terms of planning and that districts, and especially the counties, would be more viable as they would contain more people. At that time, natural geography was largely ignored. In the case of new counties it seemed that bigger would be better. The county of Powys runs from Llanfyllin to Ystradgynlais in the Swansea valley. That is 130 miles, which is equivalent to the distance from the Severn bridge to the Hammersmith
Column 399
flyover. It does not make sense. Dyfed fared little better, with councillors in Llanelli trying to take decisions based on what was happening in Aberystwyth, and vice versa, and that did not make sense.It is necessary to return to single-tier authorities. The present structure leads to artificial splits between functions. Planning takes place at county and then again at district level. Education went to the counties and housing to the districts, thus splitting the means of integrated planning for communities. One result has been the closure of village schools. That happened because the lack of a proper structure for decision-making in local councils led to inadequate house building. That has resulted in the artificial aging of populations, especially in rural areas where populations are out of balance. For more than 20 years no houses have been built in many areas.
Fortunately, this mid-20th century experiment in local government engineering is coming to a halt, and not before time. All parties agree that a single tier of local government in Wales is the best way to deliver services in rural and urban areas. All functions must reside under one roof and there must be much more co-ordination. I do not think that such a statement is controversial. The only questions remaining are what functions will the single-tier authorities perform, how many authorities will there be and what areas will they cover. We heard the expected answer from the Secretary of State for Wales concerning an Assembly because, of course, no Conservative Secretary of State would ever give us a Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Grist : The hon. Gentleman speaks about rural unitary authorities. It has always worried me that in thinly populated areas it might be difficult to recruit enough local authority officers of the requisite quality. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about that ?
Mr. Livsey : I do not. Many small local authorities have high- quality officers who perform efficiently and effectively. The Secretary of State's document fails to spell out the functions of the unitary authorities. I am glad that he has confirmed that education will remain with local government. That is essential, and the Welsh Office should not attempt to centralise it. I take it from what the Secretary of State said that all the functions currently carried out by local authorities will remain with the new single-tier authorities. Elected representatives must have democratic control of all those functions.
We certainly favour the proposals in map 4 for 24 local authorities rather than 20, which is the Secretary of State's option in his reorganisation proposals. That adheres more to natural local communities rather than to communities that are put together artificially. I am campaigning for separate local unitary authorities in Radnor and Brecon because two separate authorities there would be the best way to proceed.
The Secretary of State, who has just returned to the Chamber, is wearing the tie of the Welsh Cricket Federation, presented to him by the president of that august body at the West Indies v. Wales match in Brecon on Monday. We both enjoyed that match. Is he prepared to visit Radnorshire to discuss with that authority the possibility of its becoming a separate unitary authority? I
Column 400
should also like him to return to Brecon to discuss the possibility of a separate unitary authority, because support for that in the area is unanimous.A Welsh Assembly would be the true test of Welsh Office accountability. Without it, local government and the Secretary of State are diminished. It is rubbish for the Secretary of State to say that a Cabinet post would be lost. A Secretary of State for Wales will remain and could take and develop further powers from central Government. He could take powers from the Department of Employment and from the Home Office and could have other economic powers. His relationship with the Welsh Assembly would give him a more effective role. There would not necessarily be a clash of interests, even if the ruling party in a Welsh senate had a different political complexion from that of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State works perfectly well with Welsh local authorities, which are certainly not of his political persuasion, and he is able to represent the interests of Wales in Cabinet without impediment.
Mr. David Hunt : Welsh local authorities have revenue-raising powers. Therefore, they have the right to ask people to contribute to the cost of local services. The proposed Assembly would not have such powers and the Secretary of State would totally control the purse strings.
Mr. Livsey : That may be the Labour party's proposal, but we certainly believe that there should be revenue-raising powers not only for local government but for a Welsh Assembly. It is a question of responsibility--no taxation without representation.
There are more than 70 quangos in Wales and they must be made more accountable. The number of civil servants in the Welsh Office has been the subject of debate. I always thought that there were 3,000. However, there are many thousands of civil servants there and they must be made democratically accountable. There should be closer examination of the £5 billion that is spent by the Welsh Office. The setting up of a constitutional commission to consider these issues is a matter for legitimate debate.
The principle of subsidiarity in the context of the European Community should also be subjected to wide-ranging debate. By keeping to himself the decision on local government reform, the Secretary of State has not indicated what objective tests he is applying before deciding on the preferred option. No costing is involved and we have not heard about a cost -benefit analysis of the alternative plans. That makes it difficult to judge which of his plans will be best from all points of view.
The Secretary of State is currently removing powers from local government. He is taking away the careers service and considering the removal from local government of waste disposal functions. We have already had references to higher education being removed. Community and town councils must be strengthened by being given more powers, especially for looking after their local environments and for assuming responsibility for their areas.
The ideal solution for Wales from grass roots level upwards is, first, strengthened community councils. Secondly, there must be 24 to 26 single- tier authorities which are largely based on the old councils. Thirdly, we need a Welsh senate with elections by proportional representation to give true accountability to the Welsh Office and to decide its priorities. Fourthly, we would still need a Secretary of State within the Cabinet ; and, lastly,
Column 401
there is the European dimension which is becoming increasingly important. Only in that way will Wales be properly and logically governed within the context of a democratic Europe.I congratulate Plaid Cymru on bringing this necessary subject forward for debate. We are in danger of having decisions thrust upon us by a party which is in the brake van of constitutional reform. It should throw that shackle off and get us into the 21st century as soon as possible.
6.30 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mo n) : I have listened carefully to the debate and, at the expense of embarrassing my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), I would like to thank him for his outstanding contribution to the debate. His speech raised it to the appropriate level, looking at the structures of Government from the top to the bottom. That was in stark contrast to some of the later contributions, which returned to the old, sterile, futile debates of the 1970s which surely we must now put behind us. We are now talking about a new Wales ; a new relationship that Wales has to have with the EC and with the House. The debate shows that at least one party in the House has moved on from 1979 and has recognised that we are now in a completely different ball game. That is another reason why parts of the debate about the government of Wales should not be taking place here but should have a Welsh dimension in Cardiff.
Some of the arguments are completely outmoded in today's context--arguments such as the one about what a Secretary of State would do if there were a Welsh Parliament of a different political complexion. What does the Secretary of State now do if he has to deal with Cardiff city council or South Glamorgan council, which are Labour-controlled? What does he now do when he has to deal with so many other local authorities which are not Conservative-controlled? It is hard to find a local authority in Wales which is
Conservative-controlled. Yet he says that Wales needs to have local authorities. He accepts that he has a relationship with local authorities which he now seeks to deny at an all-Wales level. That old sterile debate needs to be put way behind us. We must now look at the new relationship which is developing between Wales and the EC. The Secretary of State was gracious enough to say that he now welcomes Plaid Cymru's great contribution to the European debate, and he welcomes the new relationship that Wales has with the kind of regions that he mentions, such as Baden- Wurttemberg and Catalonia, which have their own regional governments. They are within the new framework of European regions about which we have been talking. Why would there be particular problems in Wales if the right hon. Gentleman sees none in Catalonia or Baden-Wurttemberg? Why does he think that the Government of Wales would be weaker, when some of the strongest economies in Europe are so decentralised? All the strong economies of Europe are based on the concept that all decisions that should be taken at the lowest level are taken at the lowest level. In all those regions, there is a regional level of government which is responsible for the region.
Mr. David Hunt : In all those regions, whose leaders I have spoken to, there was general surprise that I, as Secretary of State for Wales, sat in the United Kingdom
Column 402
Cabinet. The Prime Ministers of those regions said that they would give anything to have a similar position in their national Cabinets.Mr. Jones : They would not give up their Governments in order to have that facility.
We in Plaid Cymru have recognised that Wales has a major contribution to make to the Europe of tomorrow, and we want that contribution to be made on an all-Wales basis. The whole European debate has given our policy such an outward-looking dimension that we want to build that new relationship with Europe to enable our business communities, situated as they are on the very edge of the EC, to be at the heart of the decision-making process. That can be accomplished only if we have the structures of government which allow a Welsh democracy on an all-Wales basis.
6.35 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-West) : After the massive discharge of fire by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), the Welsh Assembly is about as full of holes as the proverbial colander. None the less, I still believe that it would be a mistake for the Conservative party to paint itself into a corner by refusing that proposal. In the first place, if we are to have 20 or more single-tier authorities in Wales, which I think is the right solution, there has to be some body which can debate their activities and the activities of the quangos at an all-Wales level. I do not believe that that body can be, as at present seems to be suggested, a partly or wholly nominated one.
The second argument is the federalist one. I make no apology for using the F-word from the Conservative Benches. The fact is that, for the overwhelming majority of people on the continent of Europe and for a growing minority in Britain, federalism is seen not just as the most effective structure for combining close co-operation with the retention of local autonomy and national character, but also as the structure most favourable to the development of democratic and parliamentary control. Whatever the House may choose to believe, the EC will be a federal structure and Britain will be a part of it. The only alternative to that is that it will be a centralised bureaucracy. The logic of events dictates that, in due course, that federal structure will extend downwards within each individual country.
There is one further argument. It is just possible, though I am sure unlikely, that the Welsh people at the next election will show themselves as ungrateful as the people of Monmouth were for the colossal efforts that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made on their behalf. If that were so, and if the Conservative party in Wales, like the Conservative party in Scotland, were to fail to increase its representation in the House, it would be difficult for a British Government, dependent almost entirely on an overwhelming majority in England, to provide acceptable government for the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, they would find it hard to resist demands for devolution going as far as full federation. "Never" is a word better not used in politics. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be careful not to use it.
Column 403
6.38 pmMr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) : I do not agree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) on Europe, but he has summed up the matter admirably. I could not agree more with his analysis both in respect of the effect of Europe on the constitution of the United Kingdom and of the need to have some democratic control over nominated bodies in Wales.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not make a serious speech. He usually does. Whatever the differences between us, he is a sincere Minister. However, he did not address the problem. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is to reply, but if he is, that really is a sign that those on the Government Front Bench do not take the subject seriously.
It is clear from history that the Conservative party has never instituted any institutional or constitutional changes in Wales. It opposed the creation of the Cabinet post of Secretary of State for Wales, in the form of my famous predecessor Jim Griffiths, but today the right hon. Gentleman defends that office down to the last trench, bayonet, and piece of barbed wire. The Conservatives opposed also the establishment of the Welsh Development Agency by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). However, today that is an oasis of Keynesianism in a desert of monetarism. The Conservatives also opposed the establishment of the Land Authority for Wales, which was part of the betterment levy and the development land tax that, unfortunately, I had to take through the House. The Conservatives retained that as well, as another outpost of interventionism in the Welsh economy. When there is a Welsh Assembly--and there will be, one day--the Conservative party will eventually defend it to the last trench, bayonet, and piece of barbed wire. That is why one cannot take the Government seriously. The Secretary of State is concerned about the prospect of a Welsh Assembly that was not under Conservative control. The President of the United States does not seem too concerned that Congress is controlled by the Democrats. If he can cope with that situation, I fail to understand why the Secretary of State cannot entertain a comparable state of affairs.
The views of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) on Europe are similar to those of the Secretary of State and of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, who spoke about devolution. I voted against the original attempt to take the United Kingdom into the Common Market, and I will oppose also the union that is to follow. I will not use the word "devolution" but "subsidiarity". It is all right to use that word, because it was invented by a German theologian, so everyone is happy with it. Let us no longer use that terrible word "devolution", but speak of "subsidiarity" instead, with each tier deciding which level of government is best suited to perform certain functions.
If the Secretary of State, who is in the vanguard of the Conservative European movement--or he was--is really concerned about the effect on the United Kingdom constitution of a little Assembly in Cardiff controlling the Arts Council of Wales, he ought to read the draft treaty on European economic and monetary union that the present Government, or perhaps even the next Labour Government, will have to sign soon, albeit with a few amendments. The Government are prepared to hand over the control of this country's monetary policy, interest
Column 404
rates, and money supply to unelected bankers in Frankfurt, but that is not seen as threatening the British constitution.The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to be a Secretary of State without a suit--or perhaps he said he did not want to be just a suit without a Secretary of State inside it. If he reads the draft treaty, he will find that not only he but the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all the other members of the Cabinet will be without a suit. It is absurd to argue that the minor measure of setting up a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff to control funds will suborn the United Kingdom's constitution, especially when the Government are about to sign a draft treaty that will transfer chunks of power from the House to the Commission and a central bank. That really will affect this country's constitution.
The time will come, because of what is happening in Europe now, when there will be Welsh evolution and subsidiarity, and I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not address himself to that aspect. Such a Welsh Assembly will fit into a proper system of governance for the United Kingdom.
6.43 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : We have been enlightened by the views expressed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber, including the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). If the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) had been called, I am sure that his contribution also would have been worth while. We must structure for the 21st century a form of government that is appropriate to all our needs, by deciding which decisions are best taken at what level. Some decisions may have to be taken at a European level--particularly those affecting the economy. The Secretary of State says that his primary role is to ensure that Wales has a voice when critical decisions are taken. If so, why does he not sit in European institutions on behalf of Wales, rather than concentrate entirely on his role in the British Cabinet?
It is ironic that in the same week as the Green Paper on the future of local government was published, Mr. Bruce Millan in Brussels was presenting his ideas for a European regional council. That concept might develop into a second chamber of the European Parliament, to counterbalance the centralised forces of the European Parliament's directly elected first chamber.
The Green Paper totally fails to address the functions appropriate to different levels of government, in respect of the bodies that the Government propose and others. How can anyone reach a judgment on boundaries if we do not know what are the functions within those boundaries? Are we to assume that everything now done by district and county councils will be undertaken without change by the new multipurpose authorities? The Secretary of State did not say that that would be the case.
The Secretary of State introduced those proposals because there is something approaching a consensus between Welsh councils and districts on a change to all-purpose authorities. However, the apex of their proposals is a directly elected all-Wales democracy. Plaid Cymru supports in principle one main tier of local authorities--above a community council, which would have more powers, and below an all-Wales elected Government.
Column 405
The Secretary of State made a weak contribution to today's debate. He should realise that the people of Wales are looking for a new form of democracy. He argued that an all-Wales body would cost £50 million a year. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman usually gets his figures from the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting if he does so in other contexts. Is he unaware that the cost of running the Houses of Parliament in the vote that we approved a few months ago is put at £44 million? The Secretary of State claims that it will cost £6 million more than that to run a Welsh Assembly. We can do without that kind of nonsense.Government thinking is far from clear. A report in The Guardian on 29 March said :
"The Government is actively considering setting up some form of national assemblies for Scotland and Wales as part of its reorganisation of local government Sir Wyn Roberts, Minister of State for Wales, said plans to reorganise local government, including the possible establishment of unitary authorities, opened up the prospect of executive assemblies for both nations, but he refused to be drawn on details."
It would be interesting to know why the Minister of State is not present for this debate.
Mr. David Hunt : Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was taken ill this afternoon, but I hope that he will recover quickly. He asked me, if his absence was mentioned, to apologise for his non-attendance.
Mr. Wigley : If illness is the reason for the right hon. Gentleman's absence, we all hope that he will be much better soon. The report in The Guardian continues :
"At the weekend, the Prime Minister spoke of the need for the party"--
that is, the Conservative party--
"to recover lost ground in Wales and Scotland, and said the promise of some form of national assembly, albeit without tax-raising powers, might lure back the voters."
The Government have turned their backs on a Welsh Assembly because of the fear of their supporters in Wales that they could never win a majority in a directly elected all-Wales body. That is an indictment of a system of Government that allows a party to maintain undemocratic control because of its fear that it might lose power. The Secretary of State emphasised the possibility of seats being lost in the Cabinet. May I quote what was said some time ago by a Northern Ireland Minister of State?
"Will a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland be retained after devolution? The answer is Yes'. The Secretary of State's responsibilities would be retained under both partial and complete devolution because he would continue to be responsible for excepted and reserved matters. The matters that are devolved will become the responsibility of the devolved Administration and Assembly."--[ Official Report, 28 April 1982 ; Vol. 22, c. 933.]
It was no surprise to read the comments of Mr. Roy Bradford in a Belfast newspaper on Monday. Mr. Bradford referred to
"a brutal demolition job by one Cabinet Minister"--
the Secretary of State for Wales--
"on the stated policy of his colleague."
The Government have got themselves into a complete tangle. We need to address the functions of local government. We must look beyond its current functions, many of which, in Wales, have been taken away : the old relationship between the medical officer of health and the county councils has gone ; housing, to a large extent, has
Column 406
gone to Tai Cymru ; further education has been centralised and there is a possibility that refuse disposal services will be taken over by quangos. What is lacking is democratic answerability. We should also be considering broader issues. Many people in Wales believe that the health authorities should be more accountable. The same applies to the water companies ; at present, there is taxation without representation. The police services, too, need to be more open and answerable, and the tourist industry should work more closely with local government, as well as with the quangos. All those services cry out not simply for a relationship with local government, but for a strategic, all-Wales approach. That also applies to economic planning and the development of a transport infrastructure. The Green Paper does not address the work load that will be imposed on individual councillors in the new all-purpose authorities. For a couple of years, I was a member of Merthyr Tydfil borough council, one of the old all-purpose authorities. I was on 22 committees : the only two committees of which I was not a member were the finance committee and the industry committee--the two subjects that I knew something about. The work load was enormous. We must bear in mind the ward sizes that will be appropriate if councillors who are not retired people are to undertake a reasonable work load.It is worth considering whether different councillors should be elected to perform different functions, such as education and social services, with a common secretariat serving the two, as happens in other countries. We must take a radical approach. Our ideas must be much clearer before we decide on the boundaries. We need democratic answerability on an all-Wales level, and we need a direct link with the European Community.
The Tories have never had a parliamentary majority in Wales. That, I believe, is the basis for their fear of Welsh democracy. We are talking not about the creation of a new tier of government, but about the most appropriate division of functions between existing tiers. We want democratic answerability for the tier of government which, patently, already exists.
6.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett) : This has been an interesting and worth while debate and some important issues have been raised. It is worth noting how much agreement there has been about the move to unitary authorities in Wales. The great advantage of such authorities is that people know who is responsible for services. The confusion between county and district councils can be avoided. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), who talks of the importance of bringing local government down to levels at which people can relate to what is happening.
It is strange that, having supported the idea of unitary authorities, the Liberals, Labour and Plaid Cymru have asked for another tier of government. My hon. Friends and I want less government and real devolution. That is why, when we present our paper on the internal management of local authorities--as we shall do very shortly--we shall take into account some of the points made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about the importance of streamlining local authority
Column 407
work. There should not be 22 different committees ; local authorities must become enabling authorities, tackling the important issues but not necessarily carrying out all the work themselves. Real devolution is very important, and the Government are committed to it. We have already seen it in education ; schools have been given local management, and we have introduced grant-maintained status. We have given parents more information about exam results and about what schools offer. As for housing, we have sold some 80,000 council houses in Wales to the people who live in them, thus giving them direct financial control over their lives. The Government will soon present the citizens charter, which will give people still more direct control over their lives. Ownership of property and wealth is what gives people real control over not only their own lives, but those of their families.Labour Members have talked of quality commissions and other quangos. We know that the Labour party does not believe in giving people real control over their own lives. It has opposed every piece of legislation that the Government have presented in the past few years to give more power to the individual. It has been against every attempt at decentralisation--the sale of council houses, increased freedom for parents and schools and devolution of the health service through NHS trusts. Now, Labour wants another tier of
government--costing some £50 million--which would mean more bureaucracy, more civil servants and more control over people's lives. We shall not hesitate to reject that proposal.
It is interesting to note that, in the days when he opposed the idea of a Welsh Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition said : "For the price of an Assembly, we could have a new hospital or six miles of motorway or 10 comprehensive schools every year." When it comes to spending money, we should ask the people of Wales whether they want to spend £50 million on a useless added tier of bureaucracy, or whether they would rather spend it on improving their lives directly.
We should also be concerned about the bias that the assembly might have. Let me quote the Leader of the Opposition again. He said : "I will tell the hon. Member what will happen in a Welsh Assembly which, even on a rough proportional basis, will be dominated by people representing the English- speaking industrial proletariat of South Wales."--[ Official Report, 15 November 1977 ; Vol. 939, c. 472.]
I would not use that phrase myself, but I see his point. We should not have a Welsh Assembly that would inevitably be dominated by south-east Wales, telling the people of rural Wales--the people of Pembrokeshire, Gwynedd and the like--what to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) spoke about the Secretary of State and the Cabinet. It cannot be right for the Secretary of State to lose all his powers, yet continue to sit in the Cabinet, forced to argue for more money for Wales but with no accountability for how that money is spent. That is not the job description of a Cabinet Minister ; it is a job description for a shadow Secretary of State, such as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). He would like such powers ; he would like to be simply an empty voice, unable to do anything for Wales-- merely going through the platitudes, pretending to have some power.
Column 408
It is a recipe for conflict. According to paragraph 45 of Labour's document,"the Secretary of State will have the duty, after consultation, with regional government, to initiate any parliamentary legislation or statutory regulation which it may consider necessary for the execution of such responsibilities and for which it is prepared to provide the necessary funding."
Are we to have a Conservative Secretary of State who is told, possibly by a Labour-dominated assembly, what he must do and how much money he must raise? The document has not been thought through ; it is nonsense.
What about the role of Members of Parliament in the House? I was elected by my constituents in Pembrokeshire to represent them in a national Parliament. I was not sent here as a mere delegate, unable to speak on important issues affecting my constituents because power had gone to Cardiff. Does anyone really believe that English Members would be prepared to allow Welsh and Scottish Members to decide legislation in England, without having the same power for their own countries? That was the West Lothian question that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked in 1978. We have had no reply, but that is the fundamental contradiction in Labour's proposals. We should heed the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said in 1978 that we should--
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to. Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question :--
The House divided : Ayes 32, Noes 200.
Division No. 216] [6.59 pm
AYES
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beggs, Roy
Beith, A. J.
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cox, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Howells, Geraint
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Leighton, Ron
Livingstone, Ken
Livsey, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Maclennan, Robert
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Salmond, Alex
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Wallace, James
Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and
Mr. Andrew Welsh
NOES
Adley, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Allason, Rupert
Amess, David
Amos, Alan
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Sir Thomas
Ashby, David
Atkins, Robert
Atkinson, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bellingham, Henry
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Benyon, W.
Bevan, David Gilroy
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Budgen, Nicholas
Burt, Alistair
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carttiss, Michael
Cash, William
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Chapman, Sydney
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
| Next Section
| Home Page |