---

Mr. Ron Davies: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to misrepresent me in that way--that is the only reason why I seek to intervene upon him.

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked me a theoretical question, and I answered directly that of course it was theoretically possible. The fact is that things do not work like that.

At present, we have in place a system of distributing the block grant involving detailed discussions with representatives of Welsh local government. I fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of civic affairs in Wales is fairly limited, but I assure him that that is the system. It involves agreement between the Welsh Office and local government in Wales. After the Assembly is in place, agreement will be reached by arrangement through discussions between the Assembly and local government on the basis of an agreed formula.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman puts a lot of faith in such consultation. He cannot guarantee what he has said. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset asked:

"If this House votes a certain amount to local government, will it be wholly in the hands of the new Assembly to decide which councils get how much? If south Wales makes up two thirds of the membership, will it be able to vote itself more for its local authorities than north Wales will get?"

The Secretary of State replied:

"The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions"--

not hypothetical questions--

"The answers are yes, yes and yes."--[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 771.]

Mr. Donald Anderson: Leaving aside the precedents of Wandsworth and Westminster, does the right hon.

25 Jul 1997 : Column 1143

Gentleman agree that it is absurd for him, as a non-Welshman, to try to put the frighteners on Wales, pretending that north will be set against south and Welsh speakers against non-Welsh speakers? There is an element that perhaps he cannot understand: the people of Wales have a basic sense of fair play. I am sure that that will prevail.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is continuing with the suggestion he made earlier this morning: that the possible implications of the White Paper should not be put before the people of Wales before they vote in a referendum. I find that a disgraceful suggestion for democracy.

When the Secretary of State addressed the issue on Tuesday, he talked about regional committees in the Assembly. I should like to know more about those committees. What powers would they have to guard against the dangers that I have talked about? Are they not more likely to highlight rivalries and differences rather than to cure them? We should be told why the committees should be regarded as anything more than politically cosmetic.

One further area needs to be clarified this morning--the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) touched on it earlier. On Tuesday, he asked the Secretary of State about the position in relation to Europe. The Secretary of State answered:

"Wales will not be disadvantaged in our representation in Europe as compared with the Scottish Parliament and its Ministers."--[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 761.]

The Secretary of State for Scotland told us yesterday--somewhat to our surprise and horror--that Ministers from the Scottish Parliament will be able not only to participate in European Council of Ministers negotiations, but, when appropriate, to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom.I shall continue to point out, as I did yesterday, that that is a disturbing concept, because those Ministers, who will speak on behalf of the United Kingdom, will not be answerable to this House of Commons. That is a departure from the normal rules of accountability.

The Secretary of State says that the people of Wales are not to be disadvantaged in comparison with the people of Scotland. Where in the White Paper for Wales is the power given for members of the Assembly, or the chairmen of committees of the Assembly, to participate in negotiations of the Council of Ministers, or, when appropriate, to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom? It is not there. There is only an indistinct power to discuss with and consult the UK delegations before they enter the negotiations.

Mr. Rogers: I find it a bit much for a Tory shadow Minister to talk about the representation of Wales in Europe, when a previous Secretary of State for Wales struck a dirty deal with the nationalists so that they could have representation on the Committee of the Regions ahead of the Liberals, simply to keep the Tory Government in power.

Mr. Ancram: I am asking a relevant question. When the Secretary of State made his comment on Tuesday, was he aware of the power that would be given to Ministers of the Scottish Parliament? If so, how does he explain his comment that there will be no disadvantage or difference?

25 Jul 1997 : Column 1144

Perhaps he would like to respond to that now. I am giving him the chance to do so. If he does not respond, it raises the question--which is central for a balanced constitution--why Wales is once again being treated differently from Scotland. We believe that there should be no devolution. It is incumbent on those proposing devolution to explain the differences, discriminations and discrepancies.

Since Tuesday, I have seen nothing to change my opinion that the proposals are bad for Wales and bad for the United Kingdom. They create an expensive talking shop that will do nothing to improve the lives of the people of Wales. Indeed, they will pay for it, in jobs and services lost. It will set Wales aside from the rest of the United Kingdom, removing its clout in the Government and its voice at Westminster. It will create a focus for discontent, playing into the hands of nationalism and those who wish for the break-up of the United Kingdom.

The White Paper is built on the false premise of strengthening Wales and the United Kingdom, but it will do the opposite. We comprehensively reject it, and we call on the people of Wales to do the same.

10.44 am

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): I start with a few personal comments. My hon. Friends, with whom I have served in the House for many years, know my opinion on devolution. We have argued about it amicably, and we have lived amicably with our differences. We have differed, and we have remained friends. They know me well enough to accept that if a constituent told me that they believed that Wales needed an Assembly as a focal point for its identity and culture, I would tell them that yes was the only way for them to vote. That is not a matter of evidence, but a matter of belief. There is no proof one way or the other. It is a personal decision.

My hon. Friends also know that I asked for a referendum two years ago. I asked for support in the Welsh Labour group, but the views expressed there were different from mine. I felt that a referendum would give us an opportunity for an open and intelligent debate on issues that are crucial to the long-term future of Wales.

I am not joining the yes campaign, obviously, but I am also not joining the no campaign. I have tried in the past few weeks to help the people who have to make their decision, particularly those who are not yet convinced either way, by obtaining the information necessary for an honest, informed and tolerant debate. That is why I have not done television interviews, but have asked parliamentary questions. I have been trying to get at the facts that the public need to know to make their minds up.

I was vastly reassured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comment earlier, in response to an intervention, that he greatly values independent-minded Members. I wish that he had not kept it a secret for so long. In the new spirit of consensus and good will that is now being generated, I hope that he will join me in condemning those outside the House who are turning the debate into one based on personal venom and vituperation. No one has been more of a victim of that than my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent(Mr. Smith). I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that that must end. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to say so when he winds up.

In pursuit of some of the facts that are not always evident, I asked the other day whether the concept was evolving. When voting in a referendum, the public should

25 Jul 1997 : Column 1145

know exactly what they are going to get. In all fairness, the Secretary of State admitted, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has said, that the concept would be evolving, and that they would not be involved once the Assembly was set up. He said that any future decision on development would be made by the politicians. If I understood him correctly, he meant the politicians here, not the politicians down there.

I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend's comments about my question on the detailed costing of the Assembly. He said that he gave the information because it was the proper thing to do. I accept that. He may say that the information was not in the White Paper because one has to draw a limit to how much detail one puts in a White Paper. In that case, why did I need to table a parliamentary question?

There is a well established system whereby Ministers who want to get information out plant questions for written answer, so that they have the opportunity to give that information. With only a week to go before the recess, we nearly missed the opportunity. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether there is anything else we need to know that has not yet been made public.

In pursuit of reasoned debate, I was astonished by the demand by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), for a loyalty oath. We are to have a referendum on the future of Wales, yet the Under-Secretary was saying to the people of Wales, "Suspend your powers of judgment. Vote out of blind loyalty." Blind loyalty has had a mixed history in Europe. It has led to some of the greatest acts of heroism, but it was also the most frequently quoted defence at Nuremberg. Blind loyalty has always been the aspiration of zealots and the demand of despots. I hope that we shall hear no more of it.

---