| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly): The statement holds out the tantalising prospect of the Prime Minister addressing a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee at Machynlleth, talking about the efficacy of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. It really would be an interesting experiment.
The statement itself is a welcome admission by the Secretary of State of the inadequacies of the current arrangements for the exercise of democracy in Welsh affairs. The greatest need, of course, is for the representatives of the Welsh people to control our own devolved affairs in Wales, in our own directly elected assembly. That is and will remain our priority, and no amount of tinkering with the existing procedures will divert us from that.
Does not the Secretary of State understand that the only meaningful change, short of devolution, would be to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to take decisions or to influence policy? Without such policies, the Welsh Grand Committee is and will continue to be nothing more than a talking shop. In his statement, the Secretary of State criticised the existing arrangements for being ineffective. Does he not realise that the House of Commons Standing Orders already allow for great discretion to be exercised by the Committee? It does not require to be given, as he suggested, an additional legislative role. It already has one, specified in Standing Order No. 98. The trouble is that the Government have always prevented the Committee from exercising those powers on, for example, local government reform or the Welsh language Act, by suspending Standing Order No. 86.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the only reason why he is not prepared to allow the Welsh Grand Committee a real role is that he realises how hostile the opinion of Welsh Members of Parliament is to the record of cuts, unemployment, social divisions and abuse of power, which are his Government's hallmarks? Nothing illuminated that better than yesterday's meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee, where he was forcibly reminded of the virtually unanimous opposition in Wales to the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme. Will he now acknowledge the weight of opinion that was expressed at that Committee and drop that petty and divisive scheme, if only as a sign that he is sensitive to the majority of Welsh opinion? Does he not realise that failure to do that would make a mockery of his pious statements about reforming and improving democracy in Wales?
We in the Labour party certainly want to see improvements. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has received, through the usual channels, our own radical and constructive proposals for change? I also remind him that without the co-operation of Opposition Members, the Committee would not function, so I ask him now for his confirmation that the details of any changes will be implemented only after agreement has been reached via the usual channels.
The prospect of Ministers coming to introduce themselves to the people of Wales via sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee is a novel one and, presumably, is part of the strategy for the Conservative party rather than for the better government of our country. As the Prime Minister has never visited Wales as Prime Minister,
except to fulfil the occasional party political engagement, will the Secretary of State confirm that the most appropriate subject for any debate involving the Prime Minister is the failure of the Conservative party to deliver economic prosperity, social cohesion and democratic government to Wales?
The Secretary of State's proposals are modest, but provided he is prepared to work with all the Opposition parties on the Committee, they can be made to work to bring about improvements in the way in which the House conducts its business. However, that will be for a short and experimental period only. These changes, if accepted, must and will be superseded by more far-reaching democratic reforms when the right hon. Gentleman's discredited Government are finally removed from office.
Mr. Hague:
It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman should refer to talking shops when he wishes to set up an assembly in Wales that would be a highly expensive talking shop. It would be expensive to the taxpayer and damaging to jobs and investment in Wales, and it would diminish the role of the United Kingdom Parliament in Welsh affairs, whereas what we seek to do today is to enhance the role of the United Kingdom Parliament in Welsh affairs.
It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman describes my proposals as modest, as they go further than the proposals that he tabled two weeks ago, which, as he said, he communicated through the usual channels and which were published for public consideration in newspapers in Wales. My proposals go further: in involving Ministers with UK responsibilities, in bringing the work of Parliament closer to people in Wales, and in holding meetings of the Committee in different locations in Wales. None of those was contained in the proposals that he tabled two weeks ago. Nor was there any proposal about legislative consideration, to which he refers as the only meaningful change. I know about the provision in the Standing Order to which he referred. That is why I said in my statement that there would be no additional legislative role for the Grand Committee.
There is no question but that my proposals go further than those of the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to discussions about the proposals and am open to every idea and suggestion about developing them further, but the eventual decision about changes to Standing Orders is one for the House as a whole to take.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery):
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he has no intention of amending Standing Order No. 98, which gives the Welsh Grand Committee the right in certain circumstances to consider Bills that are referred to it, in other words, to have a legislative role? If he has no intention of repealing Standing Order No. 98, will he explain why he made no mention in his paltry, miserable statement of referring any legislation to the Welsh Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 98, and explain why the Government are so frightened of using it that we were not even allowed to consider the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 when it was presented by the Government to the House? Will he give us one example of a measure about Wales on which he is prepared to give those who are elected to be legislators for, among other places, Wales, the right to legislate for the country that we represent?
Mr. Hague:
I do intend that we should amend Standing Order No. 98, but not in the way that the hon. and learned
Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposals to hold meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee in different parts of Wales will add locally to the interest and activities of the Committee and, indeed, the proceedings of the House in general?
Mr. Hague:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proposal was not put forward by Opposition Members, but I hope that they will welcome it. It is a procedure used by the Scottish Grand Committee and it has been well received in Scotland. There is no reason why people in Wales should not have the same opportunity to see their Grand Committee at work, and it will be widely welcomed throughout Wales.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley):
Does not the Secretary of State realise that, for the past 16 years, the Welsh people have seen the Welsh Grand Committee at work and they look on this proposal as yet another meaningless sop to the true aspirations of the Welsh people? But then, of course, we have seen a succession of Secretaries of State for Wales who do not represent Welsh constituencies or understand the Welsh people, and whose party will never represent the people of Wales. Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the real aspirations of the people of Wales are for a Welsh Assembly, with devolution and proper control over their own affairs, not the useless suggestion that he has made yet again today?
Mr. Hague:
The hon. Lady will recall that those 16 years began with an emphatic rejection by people in Wales of the idea of such an assembly. I do not think that it is meaningless for the hon. Lady, under these proposals, to have additional opportunities to put questions to Welsh Ministers, raise Adjournment debates and have short debates about matters of constituency concern. Those are not meaningless matters--they are enhancing the ability of Welsh Members of Parliament to represent their constituents and to bring matters before the House of Commons. That is a long way from being a meaningless proposal.
Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley):
In terms of the United Kingdom constitution, will my right hon. Friend confirm that having the Prime Minister and senior members of the Cabinet travel to Wales to meetings of the Grand Committee is a constitutional novelty? Rather than call it a talking shop, would it not be more appropriate to call it a listening channel?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |