| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ron Davies: Where has that been done before?
Mr. Ancram: I will tell the Secretary of State: in the only case where there has been devolution of power of this kind within the United Kingdom. I will gladly give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to make the statement for which I ask, and I look to him to place those words in the Bill.
Mr. Davies: I have given the right hon. Gentleman a clear answer--that provision is meaningless. Will he answer my question? What is to stop this Parliament, if it wishes, repealing that measure?
Mr. Ancram: The supremacy of this Parliament means that it can do what it wishes. If the Secretary of State refers to Northern Ireland, he will see that assurances were given by the inclusion of such a provision in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Why is he frightened of putting that phrase into the Bill by an amendment, which would merely replicate what is in the Government of Ireland Act 1920? That is a good precedent.
Mr. Davies: I am not afraid of anything. I am trying to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that I am resisting putting a meaningless provision in the Bill. He has acknowledged that there is nothing to stop any future Parliament repealing any measure passed by this or any other Parliament. Why does he not accept that a central pillar of the British constitution is that this Parliament is sovereign? Nothing that this Parliament does can bind any future Parliament. That needs no legislation.
Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State is wriggling. If he really felt that, he would have no compunction about putting such a phrase in the Bill. He is not prepared to do it because he is frightened of a confrontation with the nationalists. He fought the referendum on the basis that, while he was telling one half of Wales that devolution would strengthen the Union, he allowed the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), to go around Wales talking about how it would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom and to an independent Wales. He does not want to break up that happy friendship. Perhaps, in due course, we will help him to concentrate more closely on the matter.
We do not like the Bill. We believe it to be dangerously flawed. If it receives a Second Reading, we will seek constructively to amend it and we will look to the Government to show that they are prepared to listen to the very real fears of many people in Wales about what is being done to them in the name of devolution. The way in which the Secretary of State responds to the suggestions will be watched closely by people in Wales. I have to say that the intransigent behaviour he has shown so far does not offer much encouragement.
Above all, we will seek the reassurances that I have outlined and the responses that will fill those glaring gaps that I have outlined again, which are the cause of great concern in substantial parts of Wales. So far, the Government have ignored the legitimate fears of the
Welsh people and have done nothing to allay them. The Prime Minister's words in Downing street have turned out to be worth not the breath used to deliver them; they ring hollow today.
We will not ignore those genuinely held fears. The Bill fails to assert the supremacy of this Parliament and fails to protect cultural and geographic minorities. It fails to ensure proper resourcing for Wales to reflect need, and fails to safeguard the position of Wales within the United Kingdom or its voice within Europe.
Sir Raymond Powell (Ogmore):
I am very pleased to be called to speak in this historic debate. The Principality has waited 18 long years for a debate on devolution for Wales. I should like to put on record the work undertaken back in the 1970s by the likes of Emrys Jones, the secretary of the Welsh Labour party; my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General; Michael Foot; and the noble Lord Callaghan, who devoted their time as part of a Labour Government to trying to get devolution on the statute book as long ago as 1978.
The then Government produced the Wales Act 1978, which was rejected by 80 per cent. of the electorate, against the 20 per cent who were in favour. We worked for a yes vote in 1978 and at least we can console ourselves that our work forms the basis of the present proposals in the Government of Wales Bill; not all the present proposals, I hasten to add, especially not those dealing with proportional representation. I objected to those proposals when the White Paper was published and, as a result, subsequently voted no in the referendum.
In the spirit of co-operation and as a result of the call for unity, I hope that, if amendments are tabled, they will be given due consideration and not rejected on the basis that they might alter the spirit of the Bill. I mention that in relation to all the views expressed since 18 September. As a democrat, I accept the decision that was taken, and I appreciate that the majority was in favour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has suggested that we should not go into the facts and figures, as it would be a waste of time. I do not share his opinion. A small majority voted for the proposals and, until such time as we examine in greater depth and detail the decision taken by the electorate of Wales, we might not be able to get the unity which we need and for which we are calling.
Mr. Rogers:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Raymond Powell:
In a moment.
The results of the vote need close examination. I shall quote figures published by the House of Commons Library. In the general election on 1 May, 75 per cent. of the electors in Wales voted overwhelmingly for Labour candidates to be returned to Parliament. Four and a half
months later, on 18 September, only 50 per cent. of the electors voted on the Government's proposals on devolution. Out of 2,224,000, only 1,112,000--that is, only 50.1 per cent. of the electors--voted at all. Of the half of the electorate who voted, 559,419 voted yes--50.3 per cent. of those who voted--and 49.7 per cent.--552,698 electors--voted no. That gave the Government's proposals a majority of 6,721 yes votes, out of 1,112,000 who voted--just 6 per cent. of the total.
Therefore, we should all accept the need to aim for close co-operation. Judging from the major differences that have already erupted on the question of where the assembly will be housed, it does not seem that unanimity is being established even in these early days.
Mr. Rogers:
So that my hon. Friend does not misunderstand me further, I was objecting to the Conservatives' continual carping about the validity of the referendum. We can discuss the figures and their implications privately, but if we want to do a service to the people of Wales, the sooner we get down to considering the detail in the Bill, the better we shall be serving them. I accept, as my hon. Friend says with his great experience, that we need to bring about a reconciliation, but we certainly ain't going to get it from the Conservatives.
Sir Raymond Powell:
With all due respect to my hon. Friend, let me remind him that I am emphasising the need to examine the figures, and analyse who voted and who supported the Government's proposals. If we want co-operation, that does not just mean co-operation between members of different political parties or between Members of Parliament speaking in the House.
Many people outside can express their views only by reference to Members of Parliament. We are introducing legislation on behalf of the 25 per cent. who voted no, and the 50 per cent. who did not vote at all. We must consult those people and ensure that we take them with us; otherwise, we shall not do justice to the assembly that I dreamed of in the 1970s and which I worked to establish in 1978, unlike a number of other hon. Members, including some on the Front Bench, who were not with us.
I remind the House, and especially Labour Members, that one of the most prominent opponents of the Wales Act 1978 when it was put to a referendum is now a Commissioner in Europe. Four years after opposing the proposals that a Labour Government had introduced, he was elected leader of the Labour party. That shows the degree of tolerance that existed in the Labour party.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |