| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, I am not giving way. [Hon. Members: "Give way."] What I find rather strange in the context of this debate is the alliance between certain Labour Members and Conservative Members.
Mr. Shepherd: A British alliance.
Mr. Jones: There was a message to the Conservative party on 1 May when the Welsh people spoke. They rejected the Conservative party--
Mr. Evans: How well did you do?
Mr. Jones: I have never seen Ribble Valley on the map of Wales.
We must examine carefully the relationship between what is contained in the White Paper and the future as we see it for Wales. There is an opportunity for us to have, for the first time, a Welsh-elected body. Although it will have the powers that we would wish it to have, it will be a body that will be able to speak for Wales.
I recognise that the White Paper makes a significant commitment to the strengthening of Wales's relationship with Europe, and that is important. It is a concept that is of interest to a great many and not only to academics. Farmers and others living in rural Wales want Wales to have a clear voice within the institutions of Europe, and within the next three years there will be significant changes to that economy.
We recognise that support is given to our farmers and agriculture generally through the European Union and the common agricultural policy. We recognise also that there will be changes to the way in which the common agricultural policy operates, and we must remember that they will have profound implications for the rural economy. It is right in the context of the forthcoming changes that a Welsh voice is heard clearly. I agree with the point made by the Secretary of State in reply to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), that we shall be seeing Welsh influence for the first time and in a clear way in the institutions of Europe.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire(Mr. Livsey) made a third point about structural funding, which is an important part of sustaining the rural economy. I think that we all agree that the rural economy is fragile. I certainly agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli about that. It is an economy that needs to be supported. At the same time, we must remember the contribution that structural funds make to defending the rural economy. It is vital in the context of future changes that there is a strong and clear Welsh voice in the institutions of the EU.
Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones:
The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech. A very long article of his was printed in yesterday's edition of the Western Mail. I am sure that he will have other opportunities to contribute to the debate.
Any Welsh elected body needs to be an inclusive body. It needs to include shades of opinion that are reflected in the House, even with members of the Conservative party standing for election to the Assembly. One of the most remarkable statements that I have heard from the Conservative Front Bench, as the Conservative party joins the no campaign, is that Conservatives will be standing for the Assembly. Of course they will, once the Assembly or whatever it is called is set up. It is right that they will be standing for such a body. As I have said, it is a body that should reflect all shades of political opinion in Wales. It is important that it is inclusive.
The proportional element that is included in the voting system is important. I recognise that what is proposed does not go as far as the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru would want, but an important statement about the nature of inclusive politics has been heralded by Welsh Office Ministers, and they should be complimented on that.
The establishment of regional committees is an important recognition of the fact that different parts of Wales have different needs. Within an inclusive body, there may be different priorities for different parts of Wales. There may be different views about different things. The regional committees will provide an opportunity for various parts of Wales, whether it be the north or the west, to scrutinise more effectively the work of various bodies. That will be a considerable step forward.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
I follow the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) in saying that this is an historic day for Wales. To try to assess its significance and to find a precedent, I refer to the debates in 1831 on the eve of the Reform Act 1832. The Whigs were on one side and the Tories were on the other. For the Whigs, Grey said:
Mr. Rowlands:
I remind my hon. Friend that the 1831 Reform Bill led to the Merthyr riots, when the vast majority of working-class people in Merthyr found that they were not included in the Bill.
Mr. Anderson:
It was the start of a process of reform that led to the present position. Opposition Members may have been on the side of the Tories in 1831, but I would have been on the side of the Whigs. Certainly the people of Wales would have been on the side of the Whigs in that debate on the great Reform Act 1832, and they have shown where they stand now by electing parties that support devolution.
I support with excitement what the Secretary of State said. I broadly support his propositions on greater democracy, accountability and greater inclusiveness in the Welsh political system. Of course we shall argue about details, but the essential debate is about whether we want progress and greater accountability in Wales--and this is
the only show in town--or whether we want to keep the present system of quangocracy that has stifled movement towards a greater Welsh identity.
The Conservatives follow Wellington, as they did in 1831, and apparently believe that our system has achieved such a plateau of perfection that we cannot move forward. That was their position then, and it is their position now: the status quo and no further. If, as seems likely, Wales votes for reform, it will be interesting to see whether Conservatives Members adjust their position.
I also follow the hon. Member for Ynys Mon in saying that sovereignty now is a different concept from what it was in the latter part of the 19th century in the writings of Dicey and others. Sovereignty is now shared. At the time when Dicey was elaborating his own position of sovereignty, who would have thought that we would choose to give up sovereignty to NATO in a key area such as defence? Who would have thought that sovereignty would now be shared at different tiers, with some sovereignty going to European institutions, some to Westminster and a proposed degree of shared sovereignty at regional level?
So I welcome what the Secretary of State has said. I do so as a member of what was called in the 1970s the gang of six. Six members of my party echoed dissent and worked against the then proposals for devolution, for some good and some bad reasons. Much has changed since then, as I shall attempt to show. Three members of the gang of six--Fred Evans, Ioan Evans and Ifor Davies--have since died. Leo Abse recently celebrated his 80th birthday. There was another man called Neil Kinnock--I am not sure where he is now. I remain as the sole representative in the House of that group. I have changed my views, and I want to tell the House why.
First, I believe that Governments should be accountable. I believe in the dispersal of power, one key feature of which is some greater move towards regionalism. The record of the Thatcher Administration was one of centralisation and of removing the intermediary bodies--the corps intermediare--which acted as a diffusing structure between Westminster, Whitehall and the people. Mrs. Thatcher was, for me and for many in Wales, the great persuader. We saw the elimination or neutering of some of the bodies that stood between the state and the citizen such as local government and the trade unions. The Greater London council was abolished. The Government even made attacks on the BBC.
"The right of the people is to good government."
Wellington, replying for the Conservative Government, said that he was
"totally unprepared with any plan"
for parliamentary reform, and added that
"he would go further, and say that he had never . . . heard of any measure . . . which could in any degree satisfy his mind that the state of the representation could be improved, or be rendered more satisfactory to the country at large. . . . He was fully convinced that the country possessed at the present moment a legislature which answered all the good purposes of legislation, and this to a greater degree than any legislature ever had answered in any country whatever. . . . He would go still further and say that if at the present moment he had imposed upon him the duty of forming a legislature of any country . . . he did not mean to assert that he could form such a legislature as they possessed now, for the nature of man was incapable of reaching such excellence".
That change came 1832 after the great Wig victory, and the change now is 1997 after the great Labour victory. The equivalent of Old Sarum and the rotten boroughs before the reforms of 1832 is the quangocracy that was built upon and used by the Conservative Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |