| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): There is a unique Welsh institution in my constituency, St. David's
college, which is the only sixth form college in Wales. The principal tells me that each student at that college receives between £400 and £500 less than students in similar English institutions, that it had to bear a 14 per cent. cut in funding last year, and that it will have to bear a cut of 19 per cent. in the next three years, even though it is very successful and is educating more students each year.
Mr. Anderson: And it is doing what the Government want, in terms of extending education in that key group. My hon. Friend makes a similar point to mine.
I understand that the Welsh Office was originally sympathetic to the continuation of the scheme, but the problem arose when English authorities and the English Department for Education and Employment became involved and suggested that there should not be a Welsh solution. Our problems are difficult, but with good will, surely we can provide a solution within Wales. I do not expect an answer when the Minister winds up, but I hope that he will respond seriously to the real problem that FE colleges face. What is the purpose of the Welsh Office, if it cannot take independent decisions on matters that affect Wales? I hope that we are not carried in the slipstream of England in such matters, when our problems are fundamentally different.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen and the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) mentioned the Welsh question. There is indeed a Welsh question. It is sad that in last Thursday's debate on the constitution, only four of my Welsh colleagues were able to speak. We felt somewhat marginalised, as if it was a case of for Wales read England, or, perhaps, for Wales read Scotland.
I shall comment on the themes that the Government put forward in respect of their absolutist, no-change policy. The Prime Minister said that the debate should be the start of a great debate on the constitution. I have been around for some time, and recall that, after the defeat of the proposal of the Labour Government of 1974-79, the then Secretary of State for Wales, now Lord Crickhowell, made a similar proposal for a great debate. He talked about the possibility of a Welsh council, and the need for a strategic group within Wales. The idea may have been flawed, but at least it was speedily forgotten.
Mr. Jonathan Evans:
The hon. Gentleman is right. I recall Lord Crickhowell saying at that time that he did not think that the 1979 vote was the end of the debate. That vote had its effect on the political parties. For instance, Plaid Cymru, which believes in independence for Wales, had virtually two lines on devolution in its 1979 manifesto. There is no doubt that the result was regarded as a sea change, even though it is right to remark on the fact that Lord Crickhowell said that the debate should continue.
Mr. Anderson:
It was the elephant on the doorstep: no one can gainsay that. But Lord Crickhowell made a pledge to initiate a debate. I merely ask: what is the Government's motive in seeking to raise this debate now? Are they not indulging in the politics of fear? As we approach the election, the Government are trying to wrap themselves in a flag. That is the essence of a unionist party. They want to bang the anti-foreign drum, especially on Europe, and to wrap themselves in the flag on Scotland and Wales. They are, in effect, reducing themselves to an English national party. It is not serious or credible politics.
Amid the debates about constitutional change, it is sad that the Government have set their face against any form of change. That contrasts with the 1970s, when many hon. Members who are now on the Government Benches were openly saying that problems of governance had to be addressed. There is a range of problems: the House of Lords, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, our voting system and the governance of Wales and Scotland. It is incredible that the governing party takes an absolutist no position on all those major issues.
That is not how our constitution evolved. When problems arise, our political system usually evolves to accommodate them. Like it or not, there is a Scottish question, and, to a lesser extent, a Welsh question. It is absurd that the Conservative party has traditionally set itself against any change until that change becomes a tradition. We saw that happen with the Welsh Development Agency and with the Welsh Office.
Another of the Government's themes is their argument that devolution will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Failure to recognise the Scottish problem and the Welsh problem is more likely to lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. It is insulting to say that the people of Wales and Scotland are so politically unsophisticated that a degree of decentralisation, and an exercise in democratic control over the cluster of administrative bodies in Edinburgh and in Cardiff, will inevitably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, whereas Catalonia, Rhone-Alpes and the other motor regions that the Welsh Office and the Government want to link up with can have experiments in decentralisation without people fearing that those countries will break up. Germany has the lander: because of its history, Bavaria is different from Nordrhein Westphalia. There is devolution a la carte in Spain, where Catalonia is more prosperous and has a more developed sense of identity than Valencia.
There are different models. History will find the Government funny peculiar in saying that, despite all these great debates, we cannot have any change. In the 1970s, the Conservative party was prepared seriously to enter into a debate to address real problems. Now there is a total veto and it rejects any change.
Alas, last Thursday and now, Conservative Members have parroted the West Lothian question as if its mere repetition will end the argument. Of course it is a serious question, and I concede that at one level it is unanswerable. It should be put in the context of the problem, and we should seek to address that problem, with all the disadvantages that may indeed flow. We should also take into account the Northern Irish precedent, and the possibility of an English Grand Committee.
I accept that that may mean moving to a quasi-federal solution. Everyone accepts that the proposed changes for Scotland and Wales are a transitional position, and that they will move in different ways. There may be English assemblies. At least there will be a debate on the nature of our constitution. We should not be frightened into saying that at the end of the road the United Kingdom will be broken up. The objective is to allow ordinary people to have a greater say in the governance of their country.
I played a role in the 1970s debate. At that time I was, on balance, against the proposals of my own party, and I voted consistently against them. I am now, on balance, in favour of my party's proposals. I do not pretend in an
absolutist way that there are not advantages and disadvantages: as with all political problems, there are pros and cons.
I shall mention the factors that have induced me to change my mind--I shall just give the headlines because of the time. The first factor is the Thatcherite centralisation and the removal or neutering of the intermediary bodies between the state and the citizen, such as local government, which has been put in a greater financial straitjacket, and the trade unions. I have already mentioned the European dimension. I envisage a cluster of institutions in Brussels, another in London and another in Cardiff, each with its own form of democratic control. The second factor is the identity of Wales, which I believe is of value and should be enhanced by a Welsh Assembly.
I am not alone in changing my position. I read the interesting interview with David Waterstone in the Western Mail, which I thought was extremely significant. I recently met a senior business man who is known to many of us. He told me that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was the missionary who converted him to devolution. When the right hon. Gentleman slashed the grant to the Countryside Commission for Wales by half, and there was nothing we could do about it--we had no say, and there was no accountability--that business man began to ask various questions about the governance of Wales.
Quangos have been used ruthlessly by the Government, who cannot win by democratic means. They have filled them with their placemen. I shall not mention poor Dr. Gwyn Jones--my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has been doing a demolition job on the learned doctor for some time. The man who is now the Conservative candidate for Worcester is an able and likeable man, but he had hardly arrived in my city before he was put on a health authority. Many people were born and brought up there and have served the city well, but they have no serious prospect of getting on the Conservative quango. That sort of thing annoys ordinary, right-thinking people, who may not be politically minded otherwise.
Mr. Jonathan Evans:
Was the hon. Gentleman here when the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said how balanced the board of the Welsh Development Agency was, because it had trade union and local government representatives, and all the rest of it?
Mr. Anderson:
This is something of a death-bed repentance. If I and the Minister, who is a reasonable man, except when he speaks from the Front Bench, were to have a cup of tea and to consider the history of Conservative appointments to the Welsh Development Agency, the pattern until now and the recent change, we would both come to the same conclusion, which would not be encouraging to the Government.
Another factor is that there is now an increasing feeling of togetherness in Wales and the building of a Welsh community and identity, partly--and I commend the Government for this--because of their Welsh Language Act 1993, which has been a positive development. Language could be so divisive in Wales, as it is in places such as Belgium. Historians will give great credit to the Government for the Act, which builds on consensus and has helped to remove part of the potential divisiveness within the Welsh polity.
I hope that the assembly will develop Welsh consciousness, which is, alas, all too lacking in our present age. I have a nightmare of a Murdoch-run age, with everyone speaking in mid-atlantic accents and watching the same shows. There is some value in diversity, which I hope the assembly will reflect.
That is why I applaud the form of proportional representation that has been proposed by the Labour party. The proposal starts from the basis that there should be a reasonable number of Members--60 Members--and that the electoral areas should be well known. That is why we have selected the Westminster constituencies and the Euro-constituencies. It also accepts that there should be an attempt to include everyone in Wales, and hence to ensure that people from each part of Wales are represented in the new assembly, according to the strength of their party. That is a good starting point. In so far as electoral systems can have consequences, that will be a means of bringing the diversity of Wales together.
In that context, I find the attitude of Plaid Cymru puzzling. It is being coy and says that we cannot count on its support in the referendum. Is it a party, or is it a pressure group? Is it trying to be serious, or is it playing games? It must know that, historically, a chance to make a change of this substance comes only once in a generation or so.
Think back to 1966, when the Welsh Office was formed. Some people said, "This is such a puny creature. We do not want it. People might vote against it." Let us compare the Welsh Office of today to the Welsh Office of 1966. It has moved sensibly, with additions by the Government and by my party, according to the wishes of the people of Wales, and at the speed that they wanted.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |