Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the way in which he outlined and gave the details of his report. My report and review entirely paralleled the inquiry held by the committee. Much of it is the same. I thank the members of the committee who produced that report. It was not easy. They come from different political backgrounds and have different views on the issue, but the consensus that arose from it was almost completely the same as the recommendations that I eventually made.

I thank the Government and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for accepting every single one of my recommendations. I will come later to the practicality of that side. I thank the 100 bodies and organisations that I talked to, both in Northern Ireland and here in Great Britain, which gave me great insight into the workings of the Windsor Framework.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, my review was triggered by the fact that there was disagreement, towards the end of 2024, on what to do about the Windsor Framework. The Assembly voted, but not on a cross-community basis. The result of that was that it automatically triggered the review that I was to undertake some months later.

That reflects, in many ways, the disastrous process that followed Brexit. I make no comment on Brexit itself. I was not in favour of it, but it is not about that; it is about the effects of Brexit on Northern Ireland, which simply were not debated enough at the time. The people who decided these things and those who debated the whole issue of Brexit underestimated the impact that it would have on Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland voted in favour of remaining a part of the European Union, but of course, that does not work, because you go in as a member state or not. My own country, Wales, voted the other way, against my recommendations. The consequence of all this is that Governments have to find a way around this unusual situation. One bit of the island of Ireland is in the European Union and the other bit is outside. Inevitably, as a consequence of what we decided 26 years ago in the Good Friday agreement and whether we should have a hard border, this caused enormous complications.

The other thing that I emphasise to your Lordships is that, in my view, if the institutions had been up and running at the time of Brexit, there would have been a much better resolution of this. I am not saying that it would have been easy, but people in Northern Ireland would have made their own decisions about their own future. One thing that I have learned over a quarter of a century of dealing with Northern Ireland business is that imposition in Northern Ireland is always disastrous and that effective solutions to problems have to come from the people in Northern Ireland through their elected representatives all the time. It did not happen. As a consequence of that, we had a protocol that, strangely and bizarrely, was denounced by the Government who created it. That was not very good. Then we had the Windsor Framework, which was undoubtedly better than that. That is what we are debating today.

One problem that I faced during my review were the very deep feelings about the constitutional impact of Brexit and the Windsor Framework. Unionists take a very different view from nationalists on the effect of the Windsor Framework on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. That was well beyond the remit of what I was allowed to report on; I am not sure that I would have wanted to report on it, but I would have had a bash, even if I would not have got very far in the end. A fundamental problem with my review was that I could not touch those views that every unionist party or representative made to me about the constitutional impact of the Windsor Framework. I very much accept that it is an issue.

It was also made clear to me that the vote in Northern Ireland to accept the framework was not done on a cross-community basis. As a consequence, it went against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. I am not completely convinced about that, but I am convinced that it went against the spirit of parity of esteem. Whether you are a nationalist, a unionist or neither, parity of esteem means that your views are regarded to the same extent. I am not sure—in fact I am unconvinced—that the parity of esteem principle has not been overlooked in all this. At the end of my remarks, I will come to why I think that that should be looked at again.

There were two issues from looking at the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. One was the democratic deficit. I will not go into the detail of the recommendations that I made, to which the noble Lord has referred, but the Democratic Scrutiny Committee did not and does not operate as well as it could. It operates under great burdens: it does not have enough time, staff or expertise. There is insufficient liaison with the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. Great changes can be made to make that work better. Those points were made to me by everybody, whether nationalists or unionists. The Government have accepted the principle of those recommendations, but we need to see them working in practice.

I am not sure that the Stormont brake has got anybody anywhere. It was regarded as being hugely significant. In theory it probably is, but in reality it has not proved to be the saviour of the situation that people expected. We will wait to see what happens on the Stormont brake, but it was certainly a genuine attempt to try to overcome the difficulties. But these are complex mechanisms, which an ordinary voter in Northern Ireland would find hard to deal with.

I had the pleasure of meeting the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which wrote to me as well and indicated the difficulties that it faced. I also met the Committee for the Economy of the Northern Ireland Assembly. They were both extremely good meetings and the points made by all members from all political persuasions were very valuable.

One point that they all made was that, if you want to influence a decision on legislation, do it early; do not wait until later. It is the same here: if you want to influence legislation in this Government and Parliament, try to resolve it at an early stage. That is why it is important that the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels is properly manned by specialists who can deal with this at that early stage and catch problems before they ever get to Belfast.

The other big issue was the enormous burden on businesses that the framework has brought—not on big ones, which have lots of money and can employ people to deal with the complexities of the bureaucracy, but on small and medium-sized businesses, which cannot do that. Interestingly, I just came back yesterday from the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which was meeting in Tralee. I was talking to a nationalist MLA who was describing to me the problems that her constituents were having, including small businesses. She quoted a women’s hairdresser, who was probably going to pack up because she could not deal with the bureaucracy surrounding all this. That was interesting because the person saying this to me was from the nationalist community; I get it regularly from the unionist side of things, of course.

Probably the most significant recommendation that the committee and I have made is on the one-stop shop. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made the point that that is so important for Britain, as it is for businesses in Northern Ireland itself. Very often, a British business simply will not bother with the bureaucracy to send stuff to Northern Ireland to be sold. The organisation chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, InterTrade UK, will have a significant part to play in that, to try to explain those burdens to British business.

There is a definite case, for example, to have trusted trader status for the haulage industry in Northern Ireland—that is one of my recommendations, and I hope it is acted on soon. There is a case for the duty reimbursement scheme to be improved so that businesses do not have cash-flow problems. I made some other recommendations regarding Article 2, dealing with human rights.

The electronic travel area—ETA—regulations that operate on the island of Ireland are not part of my recommendations, but I touched on them in the report because of the importance that people felt they had. They are causing severe problems for the hospitality and tourist industry in Northern Ireland. Again, at the BIPA conference in Tralee this week, I asked the Irish Government Minister, and it was a matter of debate.

I will not go into any more of the details, suffice it to say that you could not put a cigarette paper between my report and the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They say the same things because they are the obvious things to say. I conclude by saying just three things. First, I say to the Government that it is wonderful to have the recommendations agreed, but we now await the action on those recommendations, and the sooner the better, particularly on the one-stop shop.

Secondly, the SPS agreement is absolutely vital. The quicker that happens, the better, because my experience of these things is that Europe is not exactly quick in dealing with various negotiations, and the sooner that happens, the better.

Thirdly, all these recommendations are about making the current scheme better, making it work and helping businesses, but they do not go to the heart of the political disagreement on this. That needs to be addressed too. I am not sure how that will be done because it is not easy—but it is never easy in Northern Ireland. When we drew up the Good Friday agreement all those years ago, who would have thought we could have resolved those enormous issues? But we did eventually resolve them. So, if we can do that, perhaps we can also resolve the issues that surround the Windsor Framework because, as long as they are untouched, it will be a running sore.

In the meantime, we have to be practical and make it better for individual business, better for people and better for Northern Ireland. The sooner we have the Government’s recommendations, the better.

Elections Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and to agree with the case she has so clearly outlined for Amendment 44A. However, I will speak briefly to Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to which I have attached my name. He has already presented this very clearly; I just want to stress that it is talking about local government elections. It is talking about decisions about how your bins are collected and by whom; what happens with the local social care that you or your relatives might need to use; a local library that you and your children might rely on; or, where you are still lucky enough to have local democratic control, a local school. Surely if you have made yourself part of that community and you are relying on those services and contributing to that community, you should have a say over it. That is the case here.

There is also a practical case at this time. There will be a huge level of difficulty and confusion for voters, canvassers and people campaigning for local officials with the cut-off date of the end of the transition period, settled status and different situations for different EU member countries. It will all get very complicated and messy.

I have one final observation for tonight, while expressing my opposition to Amendment 43 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. If you look at the debates as we have progressed through Report today, it is really striking that there is a clear division in this House that runs around the Government Benches, with everyone else, including the Cross-Benchers, on the other side. Every measure defended or promoted from the Government Benches, whether by Front-Benchers or Back-Benchers, seeks to see or will have the impact of fewer people voting. All the amendments moved from this side try to get more people involved and voting. That is a really interesting division to see in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to support my noble friend Lady Ritchie’s amendment, to which I have added my name.

Constitutional issues are never easy in Northern Ireland—nothing is ever simple—and this lies in that category too. We live, as it happens, in very troubled times in Northern Ireland. We are but weeks away from a complicated and difficult election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Issues which might to us seem relatively unimportant are magnified a dozen times when we cross the Irish Sea.

I add my plea to the Minister: can he persuade his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, or himself—whoever decides to go—to meet the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission? They have jointly put forward a submission. Both those bodies were set up 25 years ago at the time of the Good Friday agreement—for obvious reasons, because they were major planks in that agreement. Therefore, if they say that this is going to cause a problem, there is a very strong case for the Government to meet them.

In Scotland and in Wales, local government elections are devolved, so they take their own decisions on this. I am not quite sure why this has not been devolved in Northern Ireland, but it is not, and it lies in the purview of the United Kingdom Government. As it happens, of course—given that this relates to European Union citizens—the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. But that is not the main issue.

The main issue is that there is a problem with regard to the Good Friday agreement and Article 2.1 of the protocol—all difficult issues. But I think that a meeting would be absolutely final, in the sense that it would mean being able to talk to the two commissions about the issues which my noble friend has raised—at least, I hope it would be final. We will know in a second what the Minister will say, and whether he will go ahead with this proposal or could delay it a little until he has met with the two commissions. But I repeat: this is a difficult issue in difficult times. We look forward to what he has to say.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall make a brief comment in support of Amendment 44. In Committee I proposed an amendment to give those liable to pay council tax the right to vote in local elections. The Government said no, but I still believe that to be right in principle. I see it in part as an issue of consumer right—in other words, the principle is, “No taxation without representation”.

We are now in a position, it seems, where the Government have decided to extend the franchise to long-term emigrants from the UK, so that they can vote in parliamentary elections, but they have so far denied the right to vote to those nationals of other countries who live and pay tax here. I think that is a very serious anomaly. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to

“the tangle of voting rights left by imperial history”,—[Official Report, 28/3/22; col. 1284.]

which gives the franchise to some but not others. I find it regrettable that the opportunity has not been taken by the Bill to correct the many anomalies that still exist. I hope the Minister and the Government will be prepared to reflect on that.

Elections Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I have no doubt about that; that is why we would not have mentioned it to my noble friend. I am trying to make the point that there is an argument for something that opens up politics a bit more.

In the case of mayors, it is not like voting for an MP, where you are basically voting for who you want to be Prime Minister or which political party you support. It is very much about who you want to govern your local area, and they should have the widest possible base of support.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure always to follow my noble friend Lord Liddle, even though I would not agree with an awful lot of what he said; it is a great pleasure to follow him, nevertheless.

I absolutely think that there is no case at the moment for changing the electoral system for police commissioners. We have no directly elected mayors in Wales but we have police commissioners. There is a very strong case for trying to increase the turnout and the interest in elections for police commissioners. I am reminded of the fact that, in the very first election for police commissioners in Gwent, my own county, there was one notorious ward in the city of Newport where not a single person turned up to vote—no one at all. We are deluded if we think that changing the electoral system will improve interest. We look forward with great interest to the Minister telling us why we need to change the system.

I refer now to Amendment 136, and the very interesting debate we have had on first past the post versus proportional representation. This is not a wide debate—it would take days, weeks and months to do that—but rather one on the nature of the amendment we have been asked to consider. The amendment says that the House of Commons should be elected by PR, full stop. My noble friend Lord Grocott, in a fine speech, referred to the fact that these things cannot be changed unless there is a referendum on them. It is a rather unusual argument to suggest that because we had one in 2011 it is no longer relevant. Of course it is relevant, in the sense that we should have another referendum if that is required and should not change things unless the people are asked.

In my political lifetime, I have fought 11 elections. I served as an elected representative for 49 years, 28 of them in the other place. The great advantage of our system is that there is a marvellous link between the elected representative and the people whom he or she represents. It is unique. I was always referred to as “my MP” or “our MP” in the possessive case because they thought that. The contrast, for example, with the change that took place when we altered our electoral system for the European Parliament was immense.

Of course, the constituencies for Europe were very large—grotesquely large in some senses—but I bet your bottom dollar that people knew who their Member of the European Parliament was. I bet your bottom dollar, too, that they did not when the new system came in. I did not know who mine was, and I was an MP for the area towards the end of that system. We completely lost that link between the elected representatives and the people whom they represented. That is the greatest aspect of our system, which we must not do away with.

Of course, we have different systems in different parts of the United Kingdom. I was partly instrumental in bringing about the system in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, was right. He was very advanced and forward-looking when he made that change all those years ago. The only way that the partisanship in Northern Ireland could be destroyed was to have that system changed. It is very different there from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not the same as Wales or Scotland or England because, by voting the way they do in Northern Ireland, they express a very different view from that expressed by the rest of the United Kingdom. That was a very significant change indeed. The Assembly is elected by STV; local government is elected by STV, but, of course, the MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament are elected by first past the post.

Scotland and Wales are different. They have top- up systems, known as AMSs. They are entirely incomprehensible to the voter. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, that if the voter cannot understand what they are voting for, it is a very poor system. Indeed, in Wales, a commission has been set up to investigate changing to a different system, although I do not think they will change completely to first past the post. There is some merit in having different systems in different parts of the country—in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for their own assemblies—but they have to be comprehensible to the voters who use them. At the moment, that is not the case.

The biggest flaw, of course, in this amendment is that it does not seek proper legitimacy for the change. It is not just the 2011 referendum, but in every case—in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—referendums were held for the new systems of government, and that included the way those Governments and Assemblies were elected in every single case. In Wales, of course, when they wanted extra powers some years ago, they went for another referendum to get that legitimacy which lies behind every change. So, for me, the great weakness of this amendment is not just that I do not agree with PR, but rather my belief that the way in which the change would be introduced has to be done by asking the people. If you ask the people, you must also say to them: “Do you understand what it is you are voting for?”

UK Government Union Capability

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. It addresses very important issues and makes serious recommendations, including on the need to improve intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom. Your Lordships’ committee dealing with common frameworks, of which I am a member, has recommended improvements to the IGR system, and the Government themselves, as we just heard, are making certain changes, but we need much more radical change to the way in which the Governments in Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh and London work together.

We now live in a very different constitutional world. The British political landscape has changed dramatically and, during the past year, having to deal with Covid, more and more people are now conscious of devolution in our country. The First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, has this week spoken of the need to reform the union. He is right. There must be British Government recognition of the new picture.

When I was a territorial Secretary of State, many in Whitehall adhered to the maxim “devolve and forget”. This will no longer work. There must be mutual respect between the partnership of nations in our country. We should have an independent system to deal with disputes between those Administrations. Your Lordships’ House could play a significant role in representing the different parts of our country.

Flags and United Kingdom Government offices in Cardiff and Edinburgh will not strengthen the union. Only a wholly new approach will work. I want the union to survive and prosper. It will remain only if we seriously reform it.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, we looked very closely, obviously, at the report from Marks and Spencer earlier this week and the costs that it has identified as being connected to the protocol. It is important to note that, although it is sometimes said that we are not trying to implement the protocol, in fact both companies and this Government have shouldered very considerable costs trying to do so—both in the private sector and, for us, in the trader support scheme, movement assistance scheme and so on. All of that is having a chilling effect on the ability to move goods across the whole of the UK, which is causing so much difficulty, so we need to find a realistic and lower-cost, risk-based approach to doing this. That is what we hoped to see and we continue to hope that we can agree with the European Union.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, dialogue is always better than legal writs and newspaper articles, so I welcome the Minister’s recent visit to Northern Ireland to meet businesses and communities. Can he now tell us if he has any immediate plans to meet officials of the European Union, the Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney and the leaders of all the political parties in Northern Ireland to discuss these difficult issues around the Northern Ireland protocol?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I remain in contact with all those whom the noble Lord has suggested that I should be in contact with. I talk to my European Union opposite numbers frequently—in fact, I had a meeting with the EU ambassador this morning. I remain in close touch, as does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with all ranges of opinion in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland and Great Britain: Trade

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the downside to a Swiss-style SPS or veterinary agreement is that it would require our food and drink sector to accept not laws that were made in this country but the laws of the European Union. As far as this Government are concerned, that is quite a considerable downside to such an agreement. It is why we cannot accept one that is based on dynamic alignment.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, for over 20 years, discussion and dialogue have been at the heart of the Northern Ireland peace process and the protocol should be no exception to this. Will the Minister talk to the European Union through the joint committee, and to the Irish Government through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which was set up by the Good Friday agreement, and, above all, talk to all the political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Executive and their leaders? Only by talking will we ultimately resolve these issues.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree that dialogue is extremely important. I and my team are in constant touch with Vice-President Šefčovič and his teams, and of course my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also has many contacts in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to say that there will be a specialised committee tomorrow, 26 March, within the joint committee framework to consider all the issues related to implementing the protocol. We continue to pursue dialogue in that framework.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Border Controls

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, while condemning the intimidation aimed at border control staff and deeply regretting the European Commission’s attempt to invoke Article 16 or, indeed, any attempt to do so, does the Minister agree that what is now needed is calm negotiation between the Commission and the Government and, above all else, between the political parties and their respective leaders in Northern Ireland itself?

[Lord True (Con)]

I strongly agree with the tone of the noble Lord’s remarks and recognise his experience and wisdom in this area.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation Proposals

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Lords Chamber

We are working to ensure that UK internal freight is not subject to tariffs, and to remove export declarations from Northern Ireland to GB trade. We continue to pursue specific solutions for supermarket trade, noting the huge social and economic importance of avoiding disruption. That essential work will continue at pace in the coming days but, of course, I cannot give a running commentary on discussions with the European Union.”

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, yesterday Northern Ireland business leaders told Members of Parliament that the Government have left them without clarity, details or time to deal with the huge change that is coming. The president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union said they are being asked to prepare with both arms tied behind their back and a blindfold on. So what are the contingency plans for business if the customs declaration service is not available by 1 January? Why have businesses had no information on how a tariff rebate system would work? As noble Lords know, businesses always need certainty, and certainty here is absolutely lacking.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that businesses and communities are ready for the end of the transition period. I am sorry to hear of the remarks reported by the noble Lord, but our intensive programme of engagement with industry continues at pace. The Business Engagement Forum has now met 20 times since May, and this month the Chancellor of the Duchy formed a UK-wide business readiness task force. We have also made considerable progress on the provision of guidance, publishing over 25 pieces of sectoral guidance for businesses moving goods between Northern Ireland and GB in recent weeks.

Constitutional Convention

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who has very interesting ideas.

In 1978 I was the treasurer of the Labour “No Assembly” campaign in Wales. Over 20 years I changed my mind on devolution—which was fortunate, otherwise my future jobs as Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland would have been very uncomfortable. I did so because the people of Wales, Scotland and indeed Northern Ireland accepted that devolution was here to stay and was part of the political landscape. Things settled down. Now, of course, we are dominated as a country and a Parliament by Brexit—and Brexit will, of course, affect devolution. It will affect the powers and funding of our Assemblies and Governments. European funding, particularly for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is remarkably high and the Government have to give a promise, eventually, that if or when we leave the European Union, that level of funding will be maintained. It is there, of course, because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are generally poorer places than parts of England.

The other issue which is so relevant is that over the last week the whole of our politics has been dominated by Northern Ireland, the issue of the backstop and Brexit. The idea that, suddenly, Northern Ireland has to be taken notice of has become pivotal in the debates over the last 24 or 48 hours. The sooner the Government get down to ensuring that the institutions in Northern Ireland are restored, the more significant that will be in dealing with the Brexit issue. The failure of the negotiations over Northern Ireland has led to the failure of the negotiations over the European Union. There is a huge job to be done on that. Of course, 56% of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union; Scotland did so by a bigger majority; unfortunately, Wales did not. But these are very important issues.

If we do get Brexit, and even if we do not, there are still issues that the Government have to address regarding the present devolution settlement. Joint ministerial committees must be used a lot more. Over the last year or so they have been resurrected and have proved partially successful, but more has to be done. There has to be a greater awareness in Whitehall departments—among Ministers and civil servants—of the existence of devolution. Certainly, in the 20 years that I was involved in ministerial life, devolution was very often totally ignored by United Kingdom government departments—“Devolve and forget”, the phrase has been. Well, they cannot and they have to ensure that that is part of the political landscape as well.

My noble and learned friend Lord Morris has often talked about whether the territorial Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland should continue. They certainly should as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, until we resolve the issue there. But there may be a case, as time goes by, for there to be a single constitutional Secretary of State, with Ministers of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and, indeed, England—around the Cabinet table, with non-voting rights, to ensure that we still have that link but there is an overarching Cabinet Minister as well.

The problem is England—it always was; it always will be. It is too big. Compare the 11 million people in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with the huge numbers in England. How do you deal with that issue? As has been said, there has been piecemeal development in England. We have a Mayor of London—the only truly devolved part of England—and mayors in Manchester and elsewhere. We have the northern powerhouse. None of it is the same as the proper devolved administration system in the rest of the United Kingdom. The answer is certainly not so-called English votes for English laws. That has been, is and will be a disaster. It divides Members of Parliament from each other. In this House, it does not matter where you come from—Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or England—your vote is the same as everybody else’s. That is no longer the case in the House of Commons. No other European country has that system, and the sooner it goes, the better.

It is a problem but we can have asymmetric devolution—of course we can. Germany has it, Spain has it; other countries have it. There is no reason in this wide world why we cannot have different forms of devolution to suit the nations and regions of our country. In so doing, I believe, we will see not only a healthier and more wholesome politics but a type of politics that will have to react to whatever happens after we have dealt with devolution.

I remind your Lordships that to ignore what happens in the devolved nations of our country—over the past 24 hours, such ignorance would have been obvious to people outside. The devolution of powers in our country is absolutely necessary to ensure that democracy thrives and that we have a uniform system, even though it is asymmetrical, throughout the United Kingdom, so that we have decentralisation of our powers and a proper democracy in our country.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that on election manifestos it is quality, not quantity, of words that counts in the end. In supporting this amendment, I refer to the Members’ register, where I have declared an interest. I also remind the House, as did my noble friend Lady Morgan, that the Welsh Assembly, on a legislative consent Motion, voted against by 43 votes to 13—13 Conservatives—making very clear the Assembly’s view on the principle here. They were voting not so much on the detail of the matters that we have been discussing in this House on this Bill but on the principle of the Government’s seeking to override the devolution settlement under which devolved public services are devolved, as well as other services, such as agriculture.

That brings me to the question of the Supreme Court judgment in 2014, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred. That was very clear. Their Lordships made crystal clear their view that even though employment law was a reserved matter, nevertheless, in the operation of those services devolved to Wales—in this case, agriculture and the agricultural wages Bill that the Welsh Assembly had passed—that was a matter proper to the Welsh Assembly to legislate upon. The Supreme Court upheld that. I have seen legal opinions by an eminent QC, commissioned by the Wales TUC. I also know that the Welsh Government have had strong legal advice. Should it be necessary—it may still be—to go to the Supreme Court to challenge the UK Government’s position on the principle involved, the Welsh Government would probably win.

As I said to the Minister earlier when speaking on the Enterprise Bill, at stake here is the principle of devolution. Where services and matters are devolved, that should be a matter for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly to legislate upon, not for this Parliament.

I dealt with these issues in great detail on Second Reading on 11 January and also in Committee on 8 February, so I will not detain the House further with those detailed arguments. I would just caution that the future of the United Kingdom is at stake. We know that the Scottish Government want to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. It does not do any service to those of us who believe in the importance of retaining the United Kingdom, for all the benefits that it brings us in making us stronger together rather than weaker apart, to undermine by the back door the devolution settlement in a way that, I fear and regret, the Government have been doing on this Bill.

I ask the Minister to reflect further and maybe come to an understanding with the Welsh Government and their Public Services Minister, Leighton Andrews, in particular. I know that the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, has written to the Prime Minister about the way that this will work in future. The new Wales Bill—which we understand will introduce a reserved powers model, although it has been hugely controversial—may resolve this matter, but it may not, as we saw with the Supreme Court judgment. I think that we must tread very carefully on this ground, and I regret that, on this occasion, in this Bill, the Government have not done so.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hain and other noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I urge the Ministers, who appear to be in a very gracious mood this afternoon, to extend this graciousness to this particular aspect of the Bill. Otherwise, it seems to me that what we are doing is actually legislating for future conflict between the devolved Administrations, in this case Wales, and the United Kingdom Government.

My noble friend Lord Hain has mentioned how the Agricultural Wages Board situation some years ago went to the Supreme Court. When he and I held the offices of Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland, we decided, as a Government, that the best way we could resolve disputes between the new devolved Governments and the United Kingdom Government was through discussion and dialogue. We therefore had interministerial conferences, joint ministerial governance and all sorts of committees that met to iron out differences of opinion between the Governments of Wales, of Northern Ireland, of Scotland and of the United Kingdom.