Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 6 only, which I believe to be a model of draftsmanship, put together in such a way as to bring about as wide and substantial a coalition in favour of a principle as one can imagine.

I believe with retrospect that there are two essential questions facing the House. First, do noble Lords in their heart of hearts believe for a moment that the Welsh Assembly can conduct its important duties, including scrutiny of legislation in particular, on a basis of 60 Members? Secondly, if noble Lords do not—and I suspect that practically every Member of the House can see the force of that point—what are we prepared to do about it? Those are two very simple but, I believe, crushingly relevant questions.

The facts have already been set out very clearly. Scotland has 129 Members; Northern Ireland has 108; Wales has 60. Of course, even more important than that is the fact that only 42 Members in Wales are available to scrutinise legislation. In the case of Scotland there are 113; in the case of Northern Ireland, I am not entirely sure whether it is 90 or 92—I think it may be 92. In the case of the House of Commons, it is 522. However, the issue is not really how many Members you have in relation to the population. There may well be a proper argument in that respect that is deployed later; that is not the issue at the moment. The issue is the minimum critical mass. If you fall below that and fail to constitute a critical mass, you are not a legislature; you are a mock parliament and no legislature at all.

That has to be remembered against this background. It is a single cameral House. I am not for a moment arguing that we should have a second House, which might be very interesting to dissertate on some day. Be that as it may, we have plenty to worry about at the moment in this regard. It is a single cameral House. The scrutiny of legislation in Wales occurs in the Assembly or does not occur at all. That is the point.

This House does its work magnificently as a scrutinising body. Sometimes, we are given more to scrutinise than we should be. I feel that the House of Commons sends huge pieces of undigested legislation through which almost makes a mockery of the constitutional situation, but that is another story altogether.

Again, one has to remember the point already made by one or two Members. When we think of a critical mass, we should think not just of a number but of whether that critical mass is there, in the main, in the Opposition. If it is not—even if you increase the membership to, say, 80 or 100—if you have a strong coalition between party A and party B that is responsible for, let us say, 70% of the membership, you still fail to have a critical mass where it counts.

We are not talking about mathematical representation; nor, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys—with whose address I wholeheartedly agree in the main—do I honestly believe that it is a matter of trade-off with local government or the House of Commons. If I remember rightly, the noble Baroness was not a Member of the House when this matter was discussed three or four years ago, when the proposal was carried to reduce the number of Welsh Members of Parliament from 40 to 30. I do not want to spoil the splendid feeling of unanimity that we have had up to now, at any rate on this issue, but the Liberal Democrats could have done better than they did on that occasion. We had a vote to give the Isle of Wight two seats. Not one member of the Liberal Democrats spoke on the issue of Wales. The real condemnation came not from the Opposition but from the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the grandson of David Lloyd George, who said, “My grandfather would not be turning over in his grave; he would have been in the Dwyfor by now”. That says everything.

The only other thing I have to say about that, which is on the face of it an attractive argument but possibly a dangerous course to take, is that in 1993 a proposal was before the House of Commons to reduce the number of seats in Wales—indeed, I think, over the whole country. The Home Secretary at the time was Mr Kenneth Clarke. He said, “No, as far as Wales is concerned, I am not having it. Wales is a land and nation with characteristics of its own and circumstances which are so special and so unique that I will make it an exception”. I do not believe that Wales is any less of an exception than it was in 1993.

The question then is: what should the number be? The Electoral Reform Society, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has properly referred, has examined 42 countries which are comparable with Wales in various ways. It has come to the conclusion, taking all things into account, that the average number for such sub-parliaments as those countries have—perhaps I do them less than justice in calling them sub-parliaments, but that is the term used by the Electoral Reform Society—is about 100. It also concludes in relation to Wales that the ideal figure would be of the order of 100.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, who has placed Wales eternally in his debt by his report of 2004, mentioned the fact that the committee animadverted on the question of whether the number should be 80 and said that it should, although it was not asked specifically to deal with the matter, nor did it deal with it scientifically or specifically. Nevertheless, it was a measured judgment. Now then: if it was 80 in 2004, bearing in mind the huge changes that have occurred since then, what would it be worth today? I hope that I do not take unfair advantage of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—I certainly would not wish to nor could I do that; he is well able to make his points for himself. If 80 was the genuine estimate that was appropriate in 2004, surely by today one should be speaking of 100.

I would speak myself of 120. Why? If you regard the curve of the development as a constitutional entity of the Welsh Assembly in the 15 or 16 years of its existence, one does not have to exercise a great deal of imagination to see where it might be in a few years’ time. The idea of aiming for 120 is not chimerical, irresponsible or populist—certainly not populist—in any way. It projects what one hopes and expects for in relation to Wales. I would be very surprised if the powers that have been given to Wales do not over the next few years amply justify that.

If we were holding this debate a month or two ago, I would still be making that point, but where do the promises and undertakings that have been showered on the people of Scotland, and the people of Wales and Northern Ireland, about devolution—those promises were falling like autumn leaves in Vallombrosa, as the quotation goes—bring us? If a quarter of what was promised solemnly will in fact be done, 120 could well be justified as the membership. However, it is not a question of numbers. It is more a question of prejudice: the vast storm of prejudice that anybody who argues for an increased number will have to face. That has to be done with courage and integrity. Edmund Burke famously said that for evil to triumph, it is necessary only for men of good will to do nothing. If you wish the Welsh Assembly to fail in its main purpose of being a legislature, all you have to do about the membership is nothing.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made his proposal for 120. I thought that one was reaching the point of, “Any advance on 80? Any advance on 100? Any advance on 120?”. Where does one stop?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I am deeply grateful to my friend for giving way. Perhaps I may make a point that I forgot to make. The real case for 120 is that it is very simple. It is exactly double the number now, and you can double both constituencies—the individual constituencies and the regional ones.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I find myself in total agreement with the submissions made so clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I have immense respect for and sympathy with those who stand firmly on each side of this argument. If it is proven that there can be no actual sameness in single-sex and dual-sex marriage, then on a very artificial basis the argument seems to be carried that way. There cannot be total sameness, and we all know that.

However, the question that we should humbly be asking ourselves this afternoon is: can there be so much in common that the idea of marriage can accommodate both in respect and in status? That, I think, is the real question. If the argument was that the Christian concept of marriage is now and always has been immutable, unchangeable and utterly the same from generation to generation, then my case would fail. However, is that in fact the case?

Prior to 1836, people could get married in this country only in the Church of England. My forebears were staunch Welsh Presbyterians but they had to submit to a ceremony that they regarded as wrong. Was that not a massive change in so far as the institution of marriage was concerned in 1836? I am sorry to pontificate about matters that are well known to many distinguished lawyers in this House but before 1882 and the Married Women’s Property Act of that year, a married woman could not hold substantial property in her own name. She could hold what I think was called her “paraphernalia” but other property became the property of her husband and she herself was essentially a chattel of her husband’s estate. Immediately after that Act of 1882, could anybody say that marriage had not changed at all, any more than one could say it after 1836?

Then, in 1925, the criminal law was substantially changed. Previous to that point, if a married woman was present when an offence was committed by her husband, there was a clear presumption—a rebuttable presumption, it is true—that she was acting under his dominion and under his orders. Would one not say that that substantially changed the situation of marriage in the criminal law?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

The noble Lord is giving us a very fine history of a number of changes which have, by statute, been brought about in relation to the definition of marriage. Is he suggesting that any of those changes was of the scale and nature of the change now being proposed?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 15th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I greatly applaud and welcome this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and its other signatories. I also appreciate very much the humanity and sensitivity shown by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, if I may say so, has added to the very great respect and admiration that the House already has for him. The problem is one which is a stain upon the honour of this community. These trafficked children are the most vulnerable imaginable, while their state is the most pitiable imaginable—and yet our system fails them. Morally, our responsibility is immense and could not be greater. Legally, the responsibility has already been spelt out. As many of us know, in Part III of the Children Act 1989 there is Section 17, which requires a local authority to be responsible for a child in need, and Section 20, which requires it to accommodate a child who needs accommodation.

If I may turn to the Welsh language for a moment, there is a saying: “Dyw mater pawb yn gyfrifoldeb neb”—the business of everybody is nobody’s special responsibility—and that is the whole issue here. Somehow or other local authorities, which I know have responded well within the realities of the difficulties which they have, find it difficult to do exactly what they should in relation to these children, with the result that a very substantial proportion escape the protection which they so gravely need. In those circumstances, I believe that the amendment is excellent. It concentrates the mind, as Dr Johnson might have said. It places a focus of responsibility which is not already there in Part III of that Children Act.

It may be that the amendment is not perfect. That does not really matter, as its thrust is obvious and honourable. I had the very great privilege 43 years ago, if your Lordships can believe it, of taking the Children and Young Persons Bill through another place. I remember being thrilled then by one of the expressions in that legislation, about the responsibility of a local authority towards a child who was in its care to befriend. We have heard that expression already, but I do not think that it appears in fact in the amendment. However, I am sure that it could be incorporated in legislation in this context. I therefore feel that we are doing something which is essentially moral and good. We are supplementing a lacuna which exists not so much in the law as in the way in which local authorities have reacted to their duties in this case. It is very much to the credit of this community that it shows that sensitivity in relation to what is a very worthy cause.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I am very aware that those who push against an open door are liable to fall on their face. I suppose the trouble here is that we do not know how open the door is, given the assurance that the Minister made. However, having regard to the way he responded so humanely to the Second Reading of the Bill brought by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on 25 November and the amendments that the Government have subsequently made, we can be confident that he will be doing his very best concerning this evil practice and to ensure that the real needs of this vulnerable section will be adequately met. We give two cheers at the moment—we hope that there will be three cheers—but I suppose that there is a problem in how the report of the Children's Commissioner will be put into legislation, given that it will presumably be received well after this Parliament has ended. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that point.

I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who, as has already been said by my noble friend Lord Judd, has shown his own compassion in West Africa by his presidency of Mercy Ships. He has indeed shown himself to be committed and flexible; for example, he has listened to concerns about the former subsection (1)(c), which in my judgment could certainly have been misused for illegal immigration. The key point in subsection (1) is that the main consideration is the welfare of the child. There is no doubt about the nature of the problem. They are bewildered, vulnerable children. The Children's Commissioner's report of last month, Landing in Dover, shows some of the failings of the current system. I am sure the Minister concedes that that system is far from adequate. We need to confront it. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has put forward a proposal that might help the Minister in terms of public funds. It may be that local social services departments can provide adequate help but, if not, the voluntary spirit will be available, as the noble Lord, Lord Wei, said.

Clearly, there are concerns about the potential volunteers. Is the problem manageable? I submit that it is, given the relatively small number of children who are trafficked. Equally, there must be some concerns about the adequacy of the training. I do not wholly accept the precedent of magistrates. Yes, magistrates are amateur, but they have training and the legal clerk is always there to advise them on the law. The volunteers, it is said, are available and there is a great spirit on the part of non-governmental organisations to be ready to help. I hope that the training will indeed be adequate. Of course many social workers do not in any event have specialist training in this field.

That said, we travel in hope. I believe that the Government and indeed the noble Lord, Lord McColl, whom I congratulate again, have set out proper criteria based on the UNICEF guidance. I believe also that Greco —the Council of Europe organisation which is going to mark the Government in terms of their adherence to the obligations under the Council of Europe convention—is more likely to give a very positive report when it comes to comment on the Government's conduct in May or June of this year.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I was advised by a veteran politician to begin every speech with the word “finally” because it excites expectations. Wales is clearly the big loser in this proposal. The Select Committee for Welsh Affairs, an all-party committee, came out unanimously against it. It will be seen in Wales as making us a poor relation. It represents a wholly insensitive way of looking at Wales. Far from what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, suggested—he seems to be against devolution as such—we will not put the clock back. Indeed, devolution, moving in the way that Welsh and Scottish people want it to go, is a way of avoiding separation. Of this, finally, I am sure; this insensitivity which the coalition Government have shown will indeed be a threat to our union.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is the only contribution that we have heard as yet from the Back-Benchers on my left. The case that he puts is not so much the case for union as for uniformity. He may or may not recollect the preamble to the Act of Union 1536 in relation to Wales: that the country, dominion and principality of Wales shall be incorporated, annexed and united within the greater realm of England. Some people thought that an end had been put to the Welsh nation then. How wrong they were. It seems to me that the noble Lord still takes a pre-1536 view of the situation.

Many noble Lords have stressed the central point that the changes contemplated to seats in Wales are on such a massive scale as to be injurious on account of that scale alone. It is not a question of how greater they are than other parts of the country, but how much they represent the totality of seats—in other words, a quarter of the seats of the principality of Wales. In the whole of the United Kingdom, I believe that 7.6 per cent of seats will disappear. In Wales, it will be 25 per cent. That point has already been made with great eloquence and accuracy by other Members.

In addition, in losing a quarter of its seats it follows in reason that the disruptive effect—the knock-on or domino effect—on the 30 seats that remain will be much greater, and proportionally greater, than in any other part of the United Kingdom. There can be no doubt about that. The effect generally might be that each and every one of the 30 seats essentially loses its identity.

For a short period of eight years, I had the great honour of representing the county of Cardigan in the other place. Cardigan is almost as old as Wales itself. The old community from the estuary of the Dyfi to the estuary of the Teifi with Cardigan Bay on the west and the Plynlimon range on the east was created and hammered out on the anvil of time. It has distinctive characteristics. I will not go through them now, but some of them are very noble and some perhaps not so noble. The late Lord Elwyn-Jones used to say of the times he had in assizes in Cardiganshire that on the whole a Cardiganshire jury was against crime. He said, “Thank goodness they weren’t dogmatic about it”, but be that as it may.

I have no doubt that the Welsh scene in terms of parliamentary constituencies will be changed out of all recognition. The question has been raised by many—it was raised by my noble friend Lord Rowe-Beddoe in our debate a fortnight ago—of what the perception might be in Wales of what is happening. I believe that it will be a corporate and national reaction. It will be the feeling that Wales has been pointed out for special punishment. People say that it is one of the most anti- and non-Tory countries in the world. I think I am right in saying that the Ballot Act 1872 made it no longer necessary for tenants to vote in the presence of their landlords. Since that Act, the Conservative Party has never won a majority—I do not mean an overall majority; it has never been the leading party—of seats or votes cast for it in Wales. That will perhaps be the perception of Wales in relation to the Conservative Party.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Touché. I can only respond by saying that most reasonable people, if they wish to have a threshold, would look to a reasonable threshold. I suspect that the threshold of the noble Lord would be something like 90 per cent or so in favour. Let us at least apply the test of reasonability.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours mentioned the actual turnout and I would ask noble Lords to look at the likely turnout in this referendum. My experience, among others, is that of the Welsh referendum in 1997 where, although there was a massive media campaign in Wales—it was the big issue—by all parties urging their supporters to vote in favour, the turnout was only 50 per cent of the electorate of Wales, and of that 50 per cent, 25 per cent plus one, or whatever, voted for, and 25 per cent voted against. If, therefore, one seeks to transpose that result of 1997 to today, amid the welter of concerns about cuts to housing benefit, the welfare state and so on, I cannot imagine, save for a small beltway or M25 elite, that there will be much interest in a referendum, and certainly very little interest in Scotland and Wales. I stand to be corrected by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who feels the pulse of Scotland rather better than I do, but we have to look at this reasonably.

Whatever the attempts by the enthusiasts to drum up interest it will genuinely be very small, so we are in serious danger of effecting a major change in our constitution as a result of a very small turnout indeed.

I want mostly to talk about thresholds in a later amendment, so I shall make just one or two comments on what was said by my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. My noble friend Lord Lipsey began by setting out his past with my noble friend Lady Hayter. I was trying to work out where my past with her began, and I think we go back a very long way. There was, alas, a hiatus for some time, but I recall with great affection the times we have worked together on a number of rather important issues. She sided with my noble friend Lord Lipsey and effectively said that it would be wrong in principle for one part of the United Kingdom to prevent the rest of the United Kingdom going forward. I do not intend to bore your Lordships with a long discussion of what has happened in other jurisdictions, but it is certainly not unknown in federal or quasi-federal systems for one component part of that federal or quasi-federal system effectively to have a veto over important issues going forward. That would be the case here because, like it or not, we are perhaps sleepwalking into a quasi-federal system.

We have not yet got a fully fledged written constitution or a constitutional court, but the fact of devolution is making life in Wales and Scotland different. I left a very snowy Wales this morning—and Wales is different because even the snow I saw there this morning was whiter than the snow I can see here. I think it would be impertinent of us simply to say that we are integrationists and that we believe in the union, and not recognise that much has happened over the past 10 years or so. There is a distinct identity, which is why I am just a little puzzled—indeed, shocked—by what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, had to say. Normally, he is desperately keen to find any difference between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom—what in France they would call l’exception française. There is always something that one needs to find in respect of Wales being different from the rest of the United Kingdom. Now, with his zeal for constitutional reform, he is prepared to forget all that and go forwards juggernaut-like, forgetting that the interests of Wales, which may be very different, could well be trampled upon in this case. I said I would be brief and shall stop at this point. I simply say that I am mildly shocked at the unwillingness of my compatriot to look, as he does normally, at the Welsh exception.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

The point has been made that the amendment does not refer to any particular threshold, but Amendment 44, moved so lucidly by the noble Baroness, has no meaning, save in relation to the amendment that she moved last Wednesday night in this House and which she eventually, quite properly, withdrew. So there are two issues before the House: one is a threshold and the other is whether that threshold should apply individually in the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

On the threshold, I spoke at some length on Wednesday, and I shall not repeat what I said, even for the benefit of those who did not have the joy of listening to me on that occasion. I would for once, and for perhaps the first time over many years, seek to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. As far as I am concerned, this is one of the most important constitutional issues imaginable. The Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats is absolutely correct in saying that it is the greatest constitutional issue since 1832. Therefore, accepting that, as I do with total sincerity, I am sure that the noble Lord will accept the sincerity of those of us who believe that it has to be dealt with in a very careful and special way. There is the remote possibility that only a very low percentage of the total electorate will turn out to vote. It could be on account of general apathy or it could possibly be on account of vicissitudes of weather. Just imagine if four inches of rain fell in two or three hours, which is the sort of situation we have seen in Devon, Cornwall and the West Country within the past few months. Worse still, there could be an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in rural areas, paralysing all movement there. That has happened twice in the past 43 years. These are possibilities.

The case I put on Wednesday I shall repeat in a few sentences. It is insurance against something that is only remotely possible, but if it did happen, it would be utterly disastrous. When we insure our houses against fire, we do not do so because there is a certainty that fire will occur, unless of course there is some sort of criminal intent. We do so not because we believe there is an even chance that fire will break out, or even that there is a remote chance of it. We do so because of the fraction of 1 per cent of a chance that it will happen, and in the main we pay a small and reasonable premium to guard against such a cataclysm. That is the basis on which these amendments should be considered in relation to thresholds.

Secondly, this is not something that has been thought up out of the blue. Practically every country in the developed world has a threshold in respect of constitutional change. It is we who would be out of kilter if we reject this proposal, not the other way around. Indeed, it would be not only imprudent but arrogant of us to dismiss completely the prudent and responsible attitude of other countries in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in a most persuasive speech last Wednesday, pointed out exactly how other countries in the developed world look at this matter.

On whether the threshold should apply to the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom, the argument I would put forward briefly is this. We are a United Kingdom, but we are not a dull, grey, homogenous mass. In other words, the constituent parts have their splendidly different and wonderfully distinctive characteristics that make up the real wealth and attractiveness of the United Kingdom. While it may not be perfect, this sort of amendment endorses that very principle. In that situation, therefore, I believe that it would be chivalrous, just and proper for thought to be given to an amendment of this nature.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, it is not a question of numbers, although my noble friend Lord Browne was perhaps tempting fate in suggesting that there are no monoglot Welsh speakers. I suspect that now he has said that, the Welsh media will be searching in the valleys of the Lleyn Peninsula and will find some dear old lady—perhaps there is even some Cornish lady still—who speaks only Welsh, but I am not sure frankly that that is really material to the argument. Nor is the question of cost, as the cost must be very minor indeed. I shall argue on the basis of Celtic solidarity—hands across the Irish Sea—that this is a matter more of dignity and symbolism, and is all the more important for that.

The coalition has made much of overconcentration in Westminster and Whitehall. That has been part of the leitmotif—that there will be decentralisation, that there will be more status and more dignity given to local communities to manage their own affairs. Surely, to recognise the differences within the United Kingdom is very much in the spirit of that. I concede this is symbolic, but it will do no harm and may well do some good. I speak as someone with a Welsh background, although I concede that I am a monoglot English speaker—I went to a Welsh grammar school at a time when Wales was not being pushed, and I was taught Greek and Latin rather than Welsh, which I gave up at an early stage. However, like most Welsh people, even the monoglot majority who speak only English, I have a tremendous feeling of pride in the Welsh language. One of the great debates over the past decades has been over the ways in which we can encourage the use of the Welsh language without making it a divisive issue. I give credit to the Conservative Party for the Welsh Language Act, which I believe avoided making Welsh a divisive and explosive issue, as happened with regard to language in Belgium. Overwhelmingly in Wales there is a pride in the language, and not a nasty response to it. That Belgian-style row has been avoided here by a process of being consensual and by recognising the importance of difference. It is indeed a source of pride for most of us.

I concede that there are differences, because we have gone further in Wales with the principle of equal validity, but the identity of the nation is linked with that of the language and, however small the number of Gaelic speakers may be, the identity of the Scottish nation is also linked with that language. This is wholly consonant with the new spirit of seeking to encourage diversity in Europe by all possible means—not just in the European Union but in the Council of Europe. Doing that is not only politically important to avoid language being a source of division, but a matter of pride in that which is different.

My final principle is to accept this as a symbolic gesture. It will not cost much and it will do no harm. In terms of diversity and recognising the differences within our United Kingdom, it can do some good.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I would be serving the cause of pan-Celticism badly were I not to say that I wholeheartedly supported the amendment; indeed, I support it with great enthusiasm. The situation in Wales is a very powerful and pertinent precedent for the Gaelic situation. In Wales, the Welsh language is a living language; it is some 1,500 years old and has been recognised in statute since 1967. The combined effect of the 1967 and 1993 Acts gave the Welsh language equal validity with the English language in all formal legal situations.

In that regard, there would appear to be an unanswerable case for putting the AV referendum question in Welsh as well as in English. In the clause stand part debate, I will have something to say about the quality of translation, but that is a different matter altogether. The Welsh case is based on the fact that there are a substantial number of people, particularly elderly people, for whom the Welsh language is essentially the only language in which they communicate. They might not be monoglot as one would strictly define that term, but certainly many tens of thousands of people speak Welsh; it is certainly the first language of hundreds of thousands of people in Wales. On that basis alone, it is right and proper that this provision should be arranged. That was the situation in the referendums on the Common Market in 1975 and on devolution in 1979 and the 1990s.

In addition, Welsh is often referred to as “our language” by people who do not speak it. That gives me enormous pride and comfort. I have no doubt that much the same attitude prevails in Scotland. Therefore, there is an unanswerable legalistic case for the Welsh language—a case in chivalry and in the fact that it is part of the rich cultural heritage of the United Kingdom. In the main, that applies equally to Scotland, and it is on that basis that I fervently and proudly support the amendment.