| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.37 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): It is a privilege to follow and to congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who was making his maiden speech. It was also a privilege to listen to his very reasoned argument. If he makes such reasoned arguments in future, the House will, I am sure, listen to him with great diligence. I knew his predecessor quite well. I shared almost 30 of the 33 years he spent in the House, so I understand and appreciate the compliments his successor paid him. I offer the hon. Gentleman best wishes.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made wonderful maiden speeches. I am glad that the electorate of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney do not have the habits of the electorate of Aberdeen, South. I am only the fourth Member to represent Merthyr Tydfil since 1900, and only the third to represent Rhymney since 1929. We have a sense of political longevity, so it has been hard to present myself as new Labour.
It was even harder when, during the election of the Speaker, I sat next to a new Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who rather unkindly reminded me that the last time we met was when I presented him with his investiture mug in 1968 at Birchgrove junior school in Cardiff. It made me feel that I would have some difficulty presenting myself as new Labour.
Listening to the speeches and the many references to constituencies prompted me to think about those who have represented my constituency. Of the four representatives for Merthyr whom I mentioned, two--Kier Hardie and S. O. Davies--were strong supporters of some form of home rule. My predecessors in Rhymney offer an interesting diversity. The first was Aneurin Bevan--the scourge of any form of devolution or any suggestion that anything but the United Kingdom Parliament mattered. He was followed by Michael Foot, who was a passionate supporter of devolution.
We all share a feeling of the importance and power of this House of Commons. I would not support measures that damaged the integrity of the United Kingdom. I am not a separatist, and I shall not vote for anything that looks like separatism. The separatist vote in my constituency was minimal at the election. I do not come to the House to support any proposal that could lead to the break-up of the integrity of the United Kingdom or the United Kingdom Parliament.
I very much support the referendum. It is odd--we have to admit this among ourselves--that the Labour party, when in opposition, arrived at the decision to have a referendum in such a convoluted way, but a referendum is desirable and essential for Wales.
It has been fashionable in some quarters in Wales to deride the proposed Assembly as a feeble institution. It is certainly not true that, because it will not have tax-raising and legislative powers, it will not be an important constitutional change. It is a change of enormous
significance, and we would be foolish to pretend otherwise. A proposal that will transform the character of the civil service in Wales cannot be seen as a minor constitutional step. It is a serious step.
I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in the Welsh Office. The civil service that has developed since the establishment of the Welsh Office and the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales in 1964 was designed to serve Westminster, Whitehall and Cabinet government. The new proposals are that the Welsh civil service will serve a different body, with the open system of decision making that I assume will characterise the Welsh Assembly. That is an area of profound change and significance.
Mr. Dalyell:
My hon. Friend has raised an important point. He has great experience of the civil service. What is his judgment about the civil service having two masters--in our case, one in Edinburgh and one in London?
Mr. Rowlands:
It will be very important to make it absolutely clear in the detailed legislation where responsibilities lie and who will be responsible to whom. If not, the system will fail. As a veteran of the 1970s legislation, I assure my hon. Friend that--if I understand the speech made on Friday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales--it will be clear that the Welsh Office civil service will be answerable directly to a Welsh Assembly. That will be a profound change. It is not a minor administrative decision. We must be frank that, if we set up a directly elected Assembly in Wales, there will be competition between Westminster Members and Assembly men and women. It would be very strange if that did not happen.
The change is not one of minor practicalities, even leaving aside the question of the roles of the Secretary of State and of Westminster Members of Parliament. It is important to clarify whether the questions that we are now entitled to debate will be disallowed in this House as infringing the responsibilities and powers of the Welsh Assembly if certain functions are transferred.
I use those illustrations to show that the establishment of a Welsh Assembly is not a minor step. It is not a modest step forward--it is a change of considerable constitutional and political significance, which requires the consent of the Welsh people.
The second reason why I believe in a referendum is that, until now, that consent has been withheld--and not just in the 1979 referendum. One interesting feature emerges when we make a historical assessment of the debates in the 1950s and 1960s, as I have done. A gulf grew up between what are now called the chattering classes--I belong to those chattering classes, but I think that that pejorative description is a good one--who have promoted the case for a Welsh Assembly for 30 or 40 years and the large silent majority, who have shown considerable scepticism about the issue. We would be foolish to forget that gulf.
I was a member of the Welsh parliamentary Labour party in the 1960s and was among those arguing for a Welsh Parliament or Assembly--an elected body of some kind for all Wales. I was slightly contemptuous of those whom we saw as the old guard--Iori Thomas, Elfed Davies and the Monmouthshire mining Members--who
bitterly opposed the commitment of the Labour party in Wales to any form of devolution. I have to confess, on reflection, that they were in closer touch with grass-roots party opinion, and probably with Welsh public opinion, than the likes of me. It is salutary for us to remember that. The consent of the Welsh electorate is all the more necessary, making the case for a referendum even stronger.
I share some of the reservations expressed about the process that we have adopted. I hope that this is not a nit-picking parliamentary point, but I am a passionate believer in this place--that is why I have spent so much time fighting to get here and stay here--and I find it strange to bring forward a Bill with a reference in the schedules to Government proposals that we have not seen. There is no White Paper. Before all the stages of the Bill are completed, we must have that White Paper. In parliamentary terms, it would be better for us to have the detailed proposals alongside the Bill.
I have supported two referendums in my parliamentary lifetime. The Referendum Act 1975 was explicit, referring specifically to proposals already laid before the House in the White Paper and the renegotiated settlement on the European Community. In 1979, an Act of Parliament was submitted to the electorate, so it was again clear what we were deciding to have a referendum on. I understand that, for a variety of reasons, my right hon. and hon. Friends have chosen a different process, but before all the stages of the Bill are completed, we should see the White Paper.
I shall not oppose the Bill, but I find it necessary to set out my reservations. By choosing pre-referendum rather than post-referendum legislation, we may create difficulties for some of our colleagues. As the Bill will allow counting, and presumably totals, on a county or borough basis, some hon. Members representing Wales and possibly Scotland may find that the verdict of their electorate is contrary to their personal view. They are interesting dilemmas, but they may create problems, as some of our colleagues may support the legislation in the House and then find that their constituents are not so keen on it.
Mr. Salmond:
That is an interesting scenario. Of course, it could apply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). As the hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, how would he expect his hon. Friend to move under these circumstances?
Mr. Rowlands:
My knowledge of my hon. Friend is so considerable that I would not attempt to speak for him. I am sure that he will explain his position clearly.
Mr. Dalyell:
The House will forgive me if I display a little curiosity as to how my constituent, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the leader of the Scottish National party, will vote.
Mr. Rowlands:
I am sure that all will be revealed.
Having chosen the order in which the process is to be conducted, some hon. Members will face a dilemma of Burkean proportions in their approach to the legislation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |