| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State talks about consultation. He must accept that when he came to the Welsh parliamentary party meeting that I chaired--we were thankful that he could come at such short notice--the Opposition thought that he had accepted some of the points made during the consultation process. We were amazed when he left the room and almost immediately reneged on some of the undertakings that he had made. If he talks about consultation and common ground, he must respect the statements that he made during those discussions.
Mr. Hague: Yes, and I shall come to that point in a moment and discuss some of the subjects that we debated at that meeting of the parliamentary party.
All the proposals are aimed at improving the Committee's workings. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) expressed scepticism about the changes. He thought that they were set in a different context and had a different motive behind them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy said, this argument is different from a proposal to change the constitutional position. If a sinister motive to undermine the Labour party lay behind our proposals, why did the Labour party advance very similar proposals?
We do not need to change the Welsh Grand Committee and its proceedings in order to discredit the arguments for a Welsh Assembly; all that we have to do is to ask the hon. Member for Caerphilly to give another interview to "On the Record", where he treats repeated and authoritative reports of division in his party by saying that everything is clear. In one newspaper that I saw at the weekend, he was reported as saying that the Labour party's policy was clear and would become clearer. We do not need to change the Grand Committee in order to discredit such arguments.
Mr. Rowlands:
In that case, will the Secretary of State confirm that, in any debate that we have on Welsh devolution in the next nine months or so, he will not submit the proposals as his alternative?
Mr. Hague:
Certainly. This is not an alternative to devolution; it is an improvement in the workings of the United Kingdom Parliament in the context of a UK Parliament. The proposal creates a Committee which hon. Members will find more useful, to which people will want to listen and which will do a better job of scrutinising the work of the Executive. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney sees it in a particular context--if the measure were set in that context, I could understand his scepticism, but it is not. We have already incorporated many of the proposals made by Opposition Members, who have had many opportunities to add to them.
As my right hon. Friend the Lord President said, I wrote to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on 14 December and offered a meeting. The hon. Gentleman says that I did not, but I have the letter, which states:
the proposals--
If that is not offering a meeting, I do not know what is. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is offering a meeting, his difficulty will not be if the Committee uses the Welsh language, but if it uses the English language for discussion.
I met the leaders of the Opposition parties to discuss the subject and clearly asked them what alternative proposals they had. To be fair, they all made it clear in their letters that they would have preferred the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, but that is not common ground across the Floor of the House. I asked them for specific amendments to the Standing Orders as proposed and there was much sucking of teeth and furrowing of brows. It was suggested that we should not lay down a time of 10.30 am for meetings in different parts of Wales, as that might prove logistically difficult, and that proposal was changed in the Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that nothing had been changed as a result of his suggestions, but that change has been made.
I was asked to discuss all those matters in the Welsh Grand Committee. That seems to have been the main bone of contention this evening. I have never deviated from my view that it is the House that has power to change Standing Orders, that the matter is of interest to hon. Members in general--not just Welsh Members--and that it should be debated on the Floor of the House. I recall expressing that view at the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party, as well as in a television interview afterwards.
Mr. Ron Davies:
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Wigley:
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hague:
I am spoilt for choice. I must give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Caernarfon later.
Mr. Davies:
I hope that the Secretary of State is giving way to me out of choice rather than necessity, but I am grateful to him in any event.
If the Secretary of State believes now, and has always believed, that it is inappropriate for the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss such changes, why did the Government suggest--via the usual channels--that, rather than debating the subject on the Floor of the House, we should do so in the Committee?
Mr. Hague:
I have made no such suggestion. I have consistently said that these matters should be discussed and resolved on the Floor of the House--and here we are, resolving them on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Wigley:
The Secretary of State will recall that a number of constructive proposals were advanced.
Mr. Hague:
I was coming to that and, if I do not take too many more interventions, I shall be able to explain more about the Government's position.
In the meeting to which I have referred, we engaged in a constructive discussion of a number of matters. The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked for reassurances about the timing and content of debates in the Welsh Grand Committee being determined by the usual channels, rather than solely dictated by the Government, and I gave him those reassurances. The hon. Member for Gower(Mr. Wardell) and others made their point about the possible value of the Committee's discussing Select Committee reports; I agreed, and I am perfectly amenable to the idea of Conservative-led discussions over the coming months.
In the meeting, I specifically said that I was amenable to the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney with regard to European Standing Committee procedure, and said that I was amenable. Let me make it clear that the procedure can be adopted under the proposed Standing Orders: a debate in the Grand Committee on a matter referred to it by the House could be a debate of the type cited by the hon. Gentleman, and could be dealt with in the same style as a European Standing Committee debate. I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of using one of the Grand Committee's meetings for that purpose in the coming months--but, according to all the advice that I have received, we do not need to change the proposed Standing Orders to achieve that.
During the meeting, the hon. Member for Caernarfon and I discussed the number of meetings that should take place. I think that he was relatively reassured by what I said. Some hon. Members mentioned the use of the Welsh language; my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made an announcement about that earlier today. I do not think it fair to say that consultation has been ignored during the process that has taken place.
Mr. Rowlands:
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Flynn:
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hague:
I must press on, because I want to comment on the amendments. If there is time, however, I will give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
"I would welcome your comments on them"--
"and would be ready to discuss the changes if you would find that helpful."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |