| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan): Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that devolution was a key element in Labour's manifesto at the general election, and that we had the biggest endorsement of the British people for a long time, while the hon. Gentleman's party had its worst result for 150 years?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that the election was fought solely on the issue of devolution. I do not think that that is true, and it certainly was not the case in England.
It also raises the question: if the election result resolved the issue whether devolution should go ahead, why we are now to have referendums in September? Surely the point of that is to allow the people of Wales to consider the arguments not only for an Assembly but against it, and to make up their minds on the basis of those arguments. In that democratic process, is it not right that our sincere and fundamental arguments that the proposals will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom should be put to the people of Wales at that referendum? The suggestion that is often put to me--that somehow we are being undemocratic, given the election result, in expressing our views--defies the logic of democracy.
Mr. Dalyell:
Simply as a matter of fact, there are two Scottish Members present--myself and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Is it not the reality that Scottish people will have to choose between the two of us?
Mr. Ancram:
Perhaps I could answer one intervention at a time.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has put his finger on it. This is a democratic process, in which the people of Wales and of Scotland are going to have to make a fundamental decision, which, if they get it wrong, they will not be able to change five years later. It will have profound and lasting consequences, not only for Wales and Scotland but for the whole of the UK. Therefore, this debate should be conducted in all seriousness, with both sides of the argument being heard and being put.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
The right hon. Gentleman asked a simple question: why are we having a referendum? There is a simple answer--because that was promised in the election. Is that an alien concept to Conservative Members?
Mr. Ancram:
What is an alien concept is the idea that the only reason for having a referendum is that it was in
It is easy to jeer at the people who warn that half-baked proposals of this sort will undermine the stability of our constitution and lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Of course it is not explicit in the White Paper, but it is implicit in the dynamic that it will create. The Assembly will be the first step along the road to that break-up.
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram:
No--I am going to make some progress, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, suggested that we should try to keep our speeches brief.
The Secretary of State said on Tuesday that he considered the Assembly to be "an evolving concept". He does not see it as what he is promising us today; he sees it as something that will change, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) obviously did in his welcome to the White Paper. I think that I can fairly say that his welcome was not so much for what is currently on offer as for what he believes it might become in due course. What he is looking for is not consistent with the Government' assurances that all their devolution plans are intended to strengthen the United Kingdom.
Mr. Wigley:
I have made it clear in the House and outside that the model being offered by the Government is different from what we in Plaid Cymru seek. However, that model has certain benefits in its own right. We would prefer a fully fledged democracy in Wales, with law-making and tax-varying powers; but, even if we do not get that, there are advantages in having a directly elected Assembly that can democratise the quangos and ensure that we are never again ruled by the Tories, as we have been for the past 18 years.
Mr. Ancram:
I find it hard to believe that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell the House that he does not seek to use what is on offer to achieve his concept of independence for Wales in the long term.
The White Paper is the thin end of the wedge. The fact that it seeks to carry both nationalists and those who cherish the United Kingdom shows the constitutional mess it is.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury):
The right hon. Gentleman said that yesterday.
Mr. Ancram:
I may have said it yesterday, but something that is worth saying is worth saying again, and I can say it over and again, because it is key to our objections.
The White Paper cannot achieve both those aims, because they are mutually exclusive. If it seeks to do that, it can create only disillusion, disappointment, resentment
and impatience in both Wales and the rest of the UK, which will play into the hands only of the people who wish to pull our system down rather than to build it up. Expectations will be dashed, leading to alienation, further demands in terms of both power and money, and growing pressures within the constitution, until the breaking point is reached and the link snaps.
Those are what Conservative Members see as the consequences of the White Paper. That is why we have a responsibility, whether the Government like it or not, to warn the people of Wales and of the whole of the UK of the real dangers before this referendum takes place because, once we have set foot on this path, the die may be cast and there may be no going back.
History teaches us that events can often have a life of their own, leading to unintended consequences. Constitutional reforms of this sort are even more prone to that. That is why Conservative Members reject the White Paper and oppose the concept within it. Quite simply, we believe that it is bad for Wales.
Mr. Martyn Jones:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram:
I am not going to give way for the moment; I will give way a little later.
Marginalisation is the most immediate threat facing Wales under these proposals. It is simply naive to believe that, were Wales to have an Assembly as proposed, the voice of Wales at Westminster and in Government would remain undiminished, let alone enhanced. The main Welsh voice at the centre of government and power would, to put it bluntly, be castrated.
The Secretary of State would be no more than a messenger boy, a voice without power or influence, a broken reed, bleating on the margins of Cabinet government, because the harsh reality of government is that, when someone abdicates his powers and gives away his responsibilities in an environment that has both in abundance, he is left with no influence and no ability to attract attention.
The extent of the Secretary of State's abandonment of power and responsibility is most chillingly summed up in paragraph 1.19 of the White Paper:
Incidentally, we are told that Welsh Questions will continue in the House. What on earth are they going to be about if all the matters that normally come up at Welsh Questions have been devolved to a Welsh Assembly? Perhaps we could have an answer to that. What is the House's role going to be in terms of questioning the Secretary of State about what is happening in Wales?
If the voice of Wales at the centre of government will have been eunuched, what of the Members of Parliament? The first cry at Westminster will be who speaks for Wales--Assembly members, who, according to the answer to a parliamentary question will be on more than £80,000 a year in terms of salaries and allowances for their glorified council jobs, or Members of Parliament? In Wales the voices will be local, and at Westminster the
Welsh voices will, in the nature of politics, become increasingly irrelevant. History demonstrates that with chilling impact.
The tragic reality is that "A Voice for Wales", in terms of the wider influence of Wales, would quickly become an introverted voice that would end up speaking only to itself, because no one else would be listening. In a necessarily outward-looking world, the Welsh people would pay a heavy price for what the Secretary of State, euphemistically and improbably, referred to on Tuesday as
"The Secretary of State will retain a small team of civil servants to support his work"--
a small team for a non-job; a sounding board for a tinkling cymbal.
"a real say in the way public services in Wales are run."
The concept that more local levels of government more closely represent local opinion than Members of Parliament is not one that I readily accept, not least because of the work that many Labour Members do in that regard. It is an insult to them to claim otherwise.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |