We now move on to our next debate, which is a Plaid Cymru debate on Catalonia. I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Motion NDM6605 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the strong links between Wales and Catalonia dating back from the 1930s during the Spanish Civil War.

2. Notes the vote of the Parliament of Catalonia to hold a referendum on self-determination.

3. Regrets the heavy-handed response by the Spanish Government and the resulting detention of elected Catalan representatives in prison.

4. Supports the right of parliaments in the European Union to make decisions for the future of their citizens.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's an honour for me to lead this debate in the name of Plaid Cymru, which will give us a first opportunity, as a National Assembly, to express an opinion about the situation in Catalonia. I do that with passion as a Welshman, as a European and as a democrat. I will give most of my comments this afternoon in the international language of first choice of the majority of Catalonians, which is English, in order to facilitate our message of cohesion and to contribute to the international debate at present.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I was in Barcelona on 1 October when the independence referendum was held. It was a horrific and inspiring experience by equal measure. I never thought I would see in a western democracy a position where—. I was in a polling station, and people, ordinary citizens, were forming human chains in order to prevent the Policia Nacional and the Guardia Civil from breaking into that polling station and breaking up the democratic process.

At the same time, it was incredibly, incredibly impressive to see the quiet dignity of the Catalan people, waiting for hours from the early hours of the morning, actually, to vote. Many of them—the first voters in almost every polling station were the elderly, some of them in wheelchairs, and voting was delayed for hours because of the repressive measures of the Spanish state. The tears in their eyes, and in the eyes of their families and the eyes of the citizens around them, and many of them saying they'd been waiting there in the cold for hours and, 'We have waited—we have waited our entire lives for this moment'—nobody could, I think, fail to be inspired by that commitment, a commitment born out of a commitment to democracy but carried out in a spirit of non-violence as well.

That's why this message of solidarity is so important from this institution. We do it because, as a small nation, we should never allow the illegal usurpation of power by a central state against the duly elected Parliament of a small nation. We cannot stand idly by when citizens are brutally repressed in the way that happened in that referendum and we cannot see a position where the elected members of a democratic government are actually imprisoned simply because the constitutional policy that they represent is at odds with that of the central state.

Of course, this tradition of solidarity between this nation and the Catalan nation has deep roots. There were Welsh members of the International Brigade that lost their lives at the Battle of Gandesa. Of course, that struggle, the struggle during the period of the Spanish civil war, saw the close interconnection between the universal fight for democracy and for civil and political rights and the desire for decentralisation and the desire for self-determination by the Catalan people.

There are dark and clear continuities in Catalan and Spanish history. The declaration of independence, of course, happened on 27 October—effectively, Catalonia was independent for four days until that was quashed by the Spanish constitutional court. On 6 October in 1934, an earlier President of the Generalitat declared a Catalan state that lasted for 10 hours, of course. He was subsequently forced into exile—an exact replica of what happened to Puigdemont. In fact, Lluís Companys, of course—eventually, the Generalitat was resurrected later during the course of the Spanish civil war—he ultimately was exiled again, brought back to Spain and was executed. He remains the only incumbent democratically elected head of a government in Europe that has been executed. Puigdemont is the only duly elected, democratically elected, leader of a national government that has faced a European arrest warrant. Since the recreation of the Generalitat in 1932, no less than seven—seven out of nine—of the Presidents of the Generalitat have either been imprisoned or exiled by the Spanish state. That is the sad fact of the continuity that the Catalan people have had to face throughout the course of their history to demand, actually, what is a modest and universal demand, which is the dignity that can only come with the right to exercise your own self-determination as a people and as a nation, which, of course, is written into the UN Charter.

It is incumbent upon us, I think, to send this message of solidarity to the Catalan people, as members of a small nation representing a Parliament in a small nation, but also as Europeans and as European citizens. I think I can only echo and pay tribute to the words of Companys himself, who said this:

'We will suffer again, we will fight again, and we will win again.'

I felt it on the streets there, moving from polling station to polling station—the indomitable spirit of the Catalan people, who for generations have been struggling for this basic human demand, which is the right of nations everywhere to self-determination, and I hope that this National Assembly, in sending its message of solidarity, will support that universal right for all peoples and all nations.

This isn't a matter of concern just for nationalists. This is a matter of concern for democrats, and I think there should be a strong message from our Welsh Parliament to the Spanish and the Catalan Parliaments that the principle of consent must be central to any democratic country.

I was appalled at the events over the summer and recently—the way the Spanish Government dealt in a completely disproportionate and undemocratic way with the perfectly legitimate demands of the Catalan people for a right to express their self-determination in a referendum. For several years, the Spanish Government have denied that simple right that we take for granted in these islands—the principle of consent.

I recognise that, across Europe, secession is not treated in the same way as we in this country have come to treat secession. It's to the credit of the UK Government that, when Scotland made demands for an independence referendum, even though they disagreed with those demands, the UK Government allowed that referendum to be held and made it clear that they would abide by the result of that referendum. And that principle should apply throughout Europe.

I was disgusted, really, that the European Union, which many in this Chamber believed to be a force for peace, democracy and stability over the last 70 years, stood silent while the rights of a constituent part were trampled over. It might have had some explanation within an article over the weekend by the Spanish Prime Minister, thanking Theresa May for standing by the Spanish Government over recent months, and that it wouldn't be forgotten when it came to the Brexit negotiations. That might provide some insight into the internal politics that were going on within European member Governments to explain their silence in this regard.

I don't support Catalan independence. I spent some time in Catalonia over the summer and spoke to a number of people living there who were uneasy with the demands for Catalan independence. This is one of the richest parts of Spain, and its loss from the country would be a clear blow to social justice across the whole country. So, I completely understand the anxieties of the majority of people from the polls in Catalonia. But surely it is right that they were given the chance to express themselves legitimately in a proper referendum, and the continued refusal of the Spanish Government to do that brings shame on them. The way that peaceful protesters were trampled on and their leaders imprisoned is a stain on the whole of Europe, and I think it's right that our Parliament sends a loud and clear signal that we think that this is unacceptable. Diolch.

Can I say that we will oppose this motion, though I do recognise the strength of feeling and the passion that, in particular, is on the Plaid Cymru benches? But I do think that this whole subject requires deep discernment rather than brief debate, and we always need to be modest when we are passing judgment on another state altogether.

Whilst the first two points of this motion are not contentious, the third and fourth certainly are. I share some of the frustrations that Lee Waters has just expressed, that some of the decision making by the Spanish state has not been exemplary, to put it very modestly. But I'm afraid the Catalan Government cannot be excused some of the errors it has made as well, especially in not creating an environment in which those Catalans who do not support independence can freely express their views and take them onto the streets and the polling stations.

Will the Member give way?

I have two people now. I think I did see Mick just fractionally first.

Would you accept that this problem has arisen because of the continued refusal of the Spanish Government to actually allow a properly organised referendum?

I think, in Britain, we would say that you should have a referendum that both sides agree with and then proceed. But, of course, Britain is the only state in the world that currently believes that that's how secession should be dealt with. I agree that's how it should be dealt with, but Spain is not in a minority in holding a different view. And, truly, secession is a decision that must be made by citizens and not Parliament, so I think your point 4 is profoundly flawed in what it states.

Perhaps the core conundrum here is whether the norm should be that nations and states are coterminous, or whether national autonomy can flourish in multinational states. I hold the latter view, though there are times when it can't flourish and multinational states have sometimes had a history of repression. There is, I think, a great question of importance here in terms of what happens—what are the ramifications if you believe that states and nations should be coterminous? How many nations are there in the world? The current estimates, as far as I can establish, range from 600 to 6,000. Well, if you had 6,000 states in the world, international order may be very difficult to maintain. Certainly international institutions, as they're currently governed, would be exceptionally difficult to operate.

Maybe he's going to come to this, but could he tell us what is his view and the view of the Conservative Party on the fact that it must be unprecedented that we have democratically elected members of a Government imprisoned on a charge of sedition in a western European democracy?

I think that was foolish action on the part of the Spanish state, but this is for the Spanish people and the Catalan people to resolve, as they are, I think, at the moment—. There certainly are consequences from the action that the constitutional court in Spain has taken—[Interruption.] Well, you know, I think we need a fair and open debate here, Adam, so perhaps you need to listen to the alternative point that is now being expressed.

And who gets to say that a particular population—it could be a city, it could be a region—is now, in fact, a nation? These are highly contested matters, and the right to self-determination in itself is not an easy thing to express. What entity expresses is? Woodrow Wilson's 14 points tried to grapple with this, but he refused to talk to the Irish nationalists, because he did not believe that they had a right to statehood, because they were embedded in what he thought was a democratic multinational state. Now, few would agree with him, probably, in retrospect, but that's what he had. And why should the entity be the nation? Cities are by far the oldest political unit in the world, and indeed, many are now generating a sense of identity that could, under certain circumstances, be interpreted as holding national characteristics.

Can I just finish, Llywydd, by saying how highly problematic the concept of secession is in international law and also how it's treated with the greatest caution by political philosophers? Not many political philosophers accept the principle of secession and those who do highly qualify it—[Interruption.] I think it's fairly typical that the proposers of the motion are not even now listening—[Interruption.] Well, I don't know. Generally, those who have held secession—[Interruption.]

Okay, okay. Allow the Member to continue now.

Those who have held that secession is legitimate do so in a highly qualified way when, basically, there's extensive repression over a long period, and that's been reacted to by a population that expresses an overwhelming and freely expressed will that is very, very obvious to discern. I don't think those characteristics are present in Catalonia, but that's for those people to determine.

The whole question does refer to: should you invest in improving, through democratic procedures, your own state or the state you find yourself in and look for more autonomous expression, or should you drive for your own state? If that happens, we will live in a world that contains many microstates, and many states that, perhaps, are not as coherent as they first appear, and then face all sorts of pressures, because, when a nation becomes a state, all sorts of forces then apply that do not apply when you're a nation within a larger body or multinational state. So, I do think that we need to be very, very careful, and those that believe that secession is legitimate need to reflect on when it is, and to read the literature on this that, recently, has been quite extensive, because, at the moment, I think some people do not realise what they wish for.

I'm delighted to rise to support the eloquent and moving plea of Adam Price, who opened this debate. I would like to think that David Melding's speech was purely for the purposes of testing the hypotheses of those who have spoken so far, and he's acting, therefore, as the devil's advocate, an honoured position in Catholic theology. But, sadly, I think he believed the sophistical arguments that he adduced. I will go straight to the question that he asked: what is a nation? Well, it's a matter of fact: a nation is a nation when it feels itself to be a nation. Yes, it may well be that we could have thousands of nation states in the world, should the peoples of the world determine their futures in that way. We do have city states, do we not, like Singapore, actually one of the richest countries in the world, as I never tire of pointing out to the finance Secretary in debates on taxation.

This debate is about one very simple principle, that of the right of self-determination, which is enshrined in the United Nations charter. For the life of me, I can't see why points 3 and 4 in this motion should be controversial to any democrat. So, I'm at a loss to understand the reasoning behind the objection to it. I certainly oppose the heavy-handed response by the Spanish Government and the detention of elected Catalan representatives in prison. It is true that, under the semi-Francoist constitution of Spain, they acted against the law of the land, and I'm afraid the behaviour of the Spanish state shows that the ghost of General Franco still hovers over the political system in Spain today, sadly.

What needs to change in Spain is the Spanish constitution, and there is no doubt that a very substantial proportion of the population in Catalonia wants to have independence. Whether it's a majority or not, I can't say. I take no view on the merits of it. I believe in the unitary state of the United Kingdom, and I want Wales to remain part of it, but I accept absolutely the right of the Welsh people to determine their future for themselves in constitutional terms. Should the people of Wales decide by referendum and a majority that they want to be politically independent of the rest of United Kingdom, I would say, 'Good luck to them', even though I would be on the other side of the argument. It must, at the end of the day, be for the people themselves to decide their own future, and no-one, I believe, has the right to deprive people of that fundamental right.

I read a very interesting article, which I wholly applaud, and recommend everybody read, by Mick Antoniw in WalesOnline this week, where he made a very prescient point. He said that

'The arrest and imprisonment of democratically elected government ministers for Catalonia has exposed a gaping wound in the European Union’s constitutional commitment to uphold human rights and the rule of law.'

'There is no doubt'— he went on to say—

'that the declaration was in breach of the constitution; but there can also be little doubt that failure of the central government on numerous occasions to support amendments to the constitution to allow the possibility of independence through a free and fair referendum was a breach of Article One of the UN Convention.'

I would go further than that, and I would say it's also in breach of article 11 of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, the right of freedom of expression and information:

'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'

So, Spain, in my view, is in flagrant breach of that obligation, which is enshrined upon it, which they all voted for as Governments in the European Union and which the Welsh Government has recently paid lip service to, as part of the argument about Brexit. I've no objection to many parts of that charter, although I do object to the way in which it has been interpreted, in some ways, by the European Court. But article 11, it seems to me, is totally unobjectionable to anybody who believes in fundamental freedoms.

And so, I believe that it is essential that this Parliament of Wales—another small people, as has already been pointed out—should express its solidarity with the people of Catalonia, and any small nation that is being oppressed by its centralised Government. The Spanish Government, I think, should hang its head in shame for the way in which they've behaved towards these elected politicians in Catalonia. Spain, obviously, must sort out its own constitutional arrangements for itself, but the way to do that is not by thuggish behaviour and the repression of people on the streets, but by the force of argument in democratic institutions and free and fair votes.

I had, last month, the great pleasure to represent the First Minister at the annual gathering to commemorate those Welsh volunteers who joined the international brigades in Spain. There was a political irony there that, at that very time when we were making that commemoration, there were the scenes in Spain of crowds making fascist salutes, singing Franco-era fascist songs. The growth of Franco-era falangism, which seems to be behind the growth of Spanish, Madrid-based nationalism, is one of the real concerns.

I'm very grateful, also, to the comments made my Neil Hamilton. I'm glad to see he's undergone a Pauline conversion over the years from his previous apologism for the South African apartheid state and his tendency to be sympathetic towards the Pinochet fascist Government in the 1970s. There's no doubt: this is partly a struggle against those oppressive actions, but for me, it's fundamental. This isn't about Catalonian independence; it is about the rule of law and the proper interpretation of the rule of law as being something that actually represents the will of the people, and that's what a constitution is. A constitution that loses the will of the people, that divides the people, is no longer a workable constitution. It is no longer a compact between people.

So, for me, the biggest and the saddest thing to see in this was the UK Government automatically and blindly falling in with a hypocritical position that contradicted everything we said. Whether it be from 1968 with the invasion of Czechoslovakia, whether it be about the Falkland islands, whether it be about Gibraltar—ultimately, it's the people's right to actually choose, and that's what this is actually about. It's equally distressing to see the sterility of, really, the argument within the European Union, that they have failed to actually grasp that one of the fundamentals of the European Union and the visions behind it was actually the grasp of the rule of law, and fundamental principles, and the rights of people, and that once you move away from that to defending purely the concept of the centralised state, then you begin to sow the seeds of your own destruction. 

So, I think it is absolutely right in this Assembly that we actually make our own voice heard, that we actually stand up, through this resolution, for what is ultimately support for democratic rights, support for the rule of law, and support for the fundamental principle, enshrined in the United Nations charter, that people have the right to determine their future.

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I begin by thanking Members for bringing this very important debate forward today, and for sharing their contributions, and also for giving me this opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Welsh Government? It's really clear, from today's debate and the passionate and principled contributions of Members this afternoon, the depth and strength of feeling that exists in the Chamber on this issue. I think it's only fair to begin by making the very obvious and important point that it would not be for the Governments of Spain or Catalonia to try and influence the political structures we choose to develop for ourselves here in Wales. And in that vein, I do not believe it is for myself or the Welsh Government to express a view on whether Catalonia should or should not be an independent nation. That is not a matter for us to decide. But it is legitimate, I believe, for this Assembly to remind ourselves and others of the principles that underpin democratic institutions like ours, which has really been properly pointed out by a number of contributors to today's debate. 

Twenty years or so ago, Wales voted to establish a National Assembly for Wales. It was a passionate and impassioned referendum campaign, two sides putting forward very different visions of the Wales they wanted to see in the future. I very much took part in that debate, and was one of the very impassioned campaigners, and I took a very clear side. But what actually united all sides in the campaign was a fundamental acceptance that it would be for the people of Wales to take the decision about their future and that result would be both respected and implemented, and of course it was. 

The constitutional and democratic will of the people of Wales expressed in that referendum was to set up a National Assembly and to take greater responsibility for the decisions and policies that affect us and our communities. So, too, did those principles underpin the referendum vote on Scottish independence in 2014, and, again, it was a sometimes rough, sometimes tough, very impassioned campaign, but also founded on the core democratic principle that it was for the people of Scotland to decide their own future, and that the result of the referendum would be honoured. As it was, Scotland remained a member of the United Kingdom, but I do not doubt for one second that, had Scotland decided to vote for independence, the UK Government would have carried that through.

Whilst both of these examples in their own ways are very different to the Catalan one we're discussing, there are many similarities as well. Popular sovereignty is the foundation stone upon which democratic politics is based. The principle of self-determination is one clearly set out in the UN charter. So, too, is democratic politics based on respect, non-violence and intolerance of intimidation.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

Thank you for taking the intervention. 

Reference has been made a number of times today to the UK allowing a vote in Scotland on secession. It is important to remember, of course, that the democratically elected Scottish Government did put forward plans for a second referendum that were halted by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It was not up to the people of Scotland at that point to choose to have a vote or not.

Well, that's a very fair point, and it's part of an ongoing political discussion here in the United Kingdom about how such things should be dealt with. Actually, one of the points that David Melding made very ably was about the specific position of the UK state in this issue, which is an important point, and one not to be forgotten.

However, I think there's much to suggest that there's much in modern Spain that we can also admire. Many people have talked about the relationship between Wales and Spain over the years. Many of us have had ancestors, quite close ancestors, who fought in Spain and were very proud of having done so, or communities in which people fought in Spain against fascism—absolutely—and are very proud to have done so. 

To transition from repressive dictatorship to a democratic nation and a member of the EU in such a short space of time and without the return to bitter and bloody civil war seen in its recent past is in many ways a lesson to others, and something for which Spain needs to be admired. But it's clear for all to see that what has happened in Catalonia over the last few weeks and months has been a model to absolutely no-one. The scenes we've witnessed and the images we've all observed have been shocking, and the hope now is that the future can be more positive than the past, and that in a democratic and constitutional process the people of Catalonia can decide their own fate, whatever that fate turns out to be, and that their voice and their decisions will be respected by the Spanish Government.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

Do you think the Spanish state was wrong to stop the Catalans having their say?

I certainly think the way they went about it was wrong, absolutely. It's part of an ongoing conversation in Spain as it is, and, indeed, as Rhun ap Iorwerth pointed out, an ongoing conversation in the UK. It's a conversation that they're not having in any way that I would certainly recognise as a democratic process. 

But self-determination means that they have their say, surely?

I completely agree. I absolutely and completely agree. But at a time when democratic ideals are being tested all over the world, we do think that the people of Catalonia should have their rights and wishes respected, and that, whatever the result of that, we can continue to hold up Europe as a home to democratic ideals and values for others to follow.

Llywydd, in this debate the Government of Wales will be abstaining. We will be giving our backbenchers a free vote because we think it's extremely important that that goes. The abstention is not because we don't sympathise with the people of Catalonia, but because we do not think there's any role for the Welsh Government in deciding the fate of another nation.

I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, can I welcome what the Cabinet Secretary has just said on behalf of the Government. I understand why the Government might do that, but I want to see the freely expressed views of her backbenchers on this issue, because this is not a motion in favour of Catalan independence, or even in support of the Catalan Government. It's a motion designed around parliamentary democracy and the expression of free will by the peoples of states, whether they're nation states or not. In that regard, I'm very pleased to have the support of a wide range of political voices, it has to be said—from Neil Hamilton to Lee Waters, Mick Antoniw, and others who have contributed to this debate and focused on the democratic rights of people to have their say. It is something that we've learnt over a long period in the United Kingdom to deal with, running up to the ability to give a referendum to the Scottish people, agreed between two Governments of equals. Perhaps we learnt it at the time that we lost the 13 colonies, if you want to go back that far. 

I invite David Melding to return to William and Mary college, where I know he goes every year, and give that speech to those naughty American communists who dared to declare independence and dared to secede from a state that wasn't providing for them. Because that's what's at the heart of this debate, and I very much regret David Melding's approach to this. I expected something stronger in terms of democratic principles—that he gave us earlier, if you like—but I think he was constrained by the fact that Rajoy and May have been dancing down Downing Street this week, and was forced to give a party-political line. [Interruption.] I'm sorry, I really don't have time.

I think we want, in this place, to unite as parliamentarians, and as people who agree with the right of a Parliament to express the will of and negotiate on behalf of its people.

There is a personal element to this as well. There are four individuals still in prison in Catalunya due to the actions of the Spanish state, which everyone I think agrees has overreacted so far. We have to remember the names of Oriol Junqueras and Joaquim Forn, the two former Ministers still in prison—Oriol not able to see his children—and the two Jordis, of course, who are civil campaigners, not politicians but civil campaigners, who have also been imprisoned. We must remember them, particularly at this time of year, perhaps. But also, please unite as a Parliament to give an expression of solidarity, not taking sides but solidarity, with other Parliaments who express the will of their people.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I defer voting, therefore, under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.