| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman knows why I do not want a Welsh Assembly. I have explained several times this afternoon. He also knows that when the opinion of the people of Wales was tested, they emphatically did not want an assembly either. Even if we agree to differ on the question of a Welsh Assembly, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party published proposals for reforming the Welsh Grand Committee a couple of weeks ago and that our proposals go further than Labour's. The way in which the hon. Gentleman has characterised the whole process is highly inaccurate. We are making a sincere attempt to improve the workings of Parliament, and I think that it will succeed in that objective.
Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen): Over the past 20 years, I have spoken to more people about devolution than
almost anybody else in the House, while the Secretary of State has been in his post for only a few months. No one has ever put it to me that the answer to the problems of Wales lies in extending the powers of the Welsh Grand Committee, because 99 per cent. of the population of Wales are completely unaware of its existence. Did not the Secretary of State's statement underline how out of touch he and the rest of the Government are with the rightful demands of the people of Wales? We want the budget that he quite improperly controls to be administered democratically and accountably by an elected Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that most of the people in Wales would not know about the Welsh Grand Committee or what it does. But that makes the case for changing its procedures, for breathing new life into it by revitalising and rejuvenating them. That is what the proposals are about. We strongly differ across the Floor of the House about the prospect of a Welsh Assembly. Conservatives believe that it would be a threat to the future of the United Kingdom, and an expensive talking shop. However, we should all be able to agree that the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee need improving and that it needs to be made into a more topical and useful forum for discussion. That is what we propose to do.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): Having listened to the Secretary of State's proposal, I fear that Mogadon man is proposing a Mogadon marathon of meetings all over Wales of a Welsh Grand Committee with zero powers. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman peaked as a speaker at the age of 16. We would not want to see any changes in the powers of the Welsh Grand Committee unless they were a lead-in to a genuine democratically elected body for Wales. By now, the Secretary of State must have the clear impression that that is our attitude.
We do not want a talking shop, even a travelling talking shop, because it would still be toothless. The right hon. Gentleman talked about changing Standing Orders, but he must realise that we want a guarantee that the Standing Orders of the House will be respected in the future, in a way in which they have not been respected in the past. We want a guarantee that he will not use the Tory majority on the Floor of the House to remove the rights conferred by Standing Orders Nos. 86 and 98 for the Welsh Grand Committee to consider exclusively Welsh legislation.
Is not the Secretary of State attempting to parallel the meaningless gesture of Edward I, seven centuries ago, who promised that he would create a Prince of Wales who spoke no word of English, and then offered the young infant Edward II, who was only three months old and could not have spoken any language at all? The people want not meaningless futile gestures but a democratically elected body for Wales with real powers.
Mr. Hague:
I am not sure whether to take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he does not want the Welsh Grand Committee to travel to different parts of Wales, but that was the clear implication of what he said. I believe that that is an important part of the proposals and should be strongly welcomed throughout the House, as it will be in Wales.
The Labour party has one policy for Scotland, another for Wales and another for the different regions of England. It has a dog's breakfast of a policy on constitutional matters, which has not remotely been thought out with the interests of the United Kingdom at heart, but has been designed to do what Labour thinks will appease nationalist sentiments in each separate part of the kingdom.
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury):
Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton):
After all that excitement, I shall make a statement about next week's instalment. The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 4 December--Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 5 December--Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 6 December--Until about 8 o'clock, Second Reading of the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Chemical Weapons Bill.
Motion on the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
Thursday 7 December--Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
Friday 8 December--Debate on the Government's policy against crime on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 6 December, as follows:
European Standing Committee A, European Community Document 8962/94 and COM(95)434 relating to the fruit and vegetable regime.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Document 9554/95 relating to food aid.
In the following week, on Monday 11 December there will be the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. On Tuesday 12 December there will be the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill. On Wednesday 13 December, there will be Government business, the nature of which has yet to be determined. I expect Thursday 14 December to be an estimates day, subject to the recommendations of the Liaison Committee at its meeting on 5 December. Friday 15 December is, I remind the House, a non-sitting day.
[Wednesday 6 December:
European Standing Committee A--Relevant European Community documents: (a) 8962/94, Fruit and Vegetable Regime; (b) COM(95)434. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 48-xxvii (1993-94) and HC 70-ii (1994-95); (b) HC 51-i (1995-96).
European Standing Committee B--Relevant European Community document: 9554/95, Food Aid; Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 70-xxvi (1994-95).
Thursday 7 December:
Debate on the European Union--Relevant documents: The Twenty-fourth Report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, Session 1994-95, on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference: the Agenda; Democracy and Efficiency; the Role of National Parliaments (HC
239-1); Resolution of the European Parliament on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union (A4-0102/95); Report by the Commission on the operation of the Treaty on European Union (SEC(95)731); Report of the Council on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union (Cm 2866); Unnumbered Report by the Court of Auditors on the operation of the Treaty on European Union; Unnumbered Report of the Court of Justice on certain aspects of the application of the Treaty on European Union; White Paper on Developments in the European Union January-June 1995 (Cm 3130).]
Mrs. Taylor:
I thank the Leader of the House for that information. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the exchanges at business questions last week, when the Leader of the House was asked about the BBC World Service, but said that he felt he could not respond because he could not anticipate the Budget statement? Will he look at the issue of the World Service again, because we now know that the Chancellor has slashed the World Service's capital funds by £5.4 million--a massive 20 per cent.?
That tears up an agreement which was negotiated in good faith by the World Service and which was to have lasted for three years.
The BBC chairman, I understand, has expressed his concern about the impact of the cuts on the World Service, and I believe that there is widespread public support for the BBC World Service which is shared by Members on both sides of this House. Will the Leader of the House now consider a specific debate on this cost-effective service which has been struggling with a tough financial settlement and which may now have to reduce its--and therefore Britain's--voice in the world?
Will he think again on that issue?
Secondly, we heard the Prime Minister today at Prime Minister's Question Time trying to defend the actions and record of Yorkshire Water in recent months. The latest figures show that while Yorkshire Water has been threatening thousands of families in Yorkshire--and West Yorkshire in particular--with rota cuts, it has been making record profits. That shows, as Yorkshire Waterwatch has said, that
There is also a danger that Yorkshire Water might seek to use the cost-pass-through mechanism to try to make sure that investment costs are passed to consumers. Is it not time that we had a full debate on the need for better regulation of the privatised utilities so that we can air our concerns that, time after time, the interests of shareholders are put before the interests of consumers? We have seen clear examples of the concerns that have been caused by that behaviour, especially in Yorkshire, and the House should have a full debate on the regulation of the public utilities.
"it is clear that the company has had enough cash sloshing about all Summer to have dealt with the underlying problems much more quickly".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |