House of Lords Reform

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, that advice was certainly relevant yesterday, when 80 people spoke in the debate and I was 71st. But it gave me time to reflect on the nature of yesterday’s debate on the Budget. It was weighty, informed, very impressive and very civilised. In the 40 years that I have been in Parliament, 10 of them here, I have been deeply impressed by the level of debate and of course by the level of revision and scrutiny of legislation that comes before us, but we do need reform. It seems to me that the House is too big. Perhaps the ideas of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, today could be looked at by my noble friend the Leader of the House as to how we could do that. Naturally, as someone who was born in 1948, I prefer the idea of participation rather than of age, but I say to the party opposite that there were two occasions during the last Parliament when we could have partly resolved that. One was through what my noble friend Lord Grocott was doing in terms of by-elections for hereditary peerages and the second was what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, did with his report. Had we adopted both those suggestions, perhaps it would not be quite so difficult today.

I was privileged to be a member of Gordon Brown’s Labour Party commission on the constitution. He came up with some excellent recommendations on how to tackle the overcentralised state that we are in at the moment and to deal with devolution. I have to agree with my noble friend Mr Roger Liddle about where we go in the political landscape we currently have, which is different from what it was when I entered Parliament a long time ago. We now have devolved Parliaments in Wales and Scotland, and happily now too in Northern Ireland. Great areas of England are governed by mayors, and there is a very strong case for this House to be able to reflect and represent the nations and regions of our United Kingdom—partly, incidentally, to ensure that it remains a United Kingdom by having such representation here. I will give my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal an idea: in the meantime, while we discuss these things in the months and years ahead, is it possible, for example, that former First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could be offered peerages in order to come here and give their experience? A lot might not want to do that, but the offer should nevertheless be made.

One of the recommendations of Gordon Brown’s commission regarded the House of Lords. Ultimately, after a lot of deliberation, he came to the conclusion, which I did not share, that the House of Lords should be completely directly elected. I gave a dissenting opinion, which was that, in my view—and only mine—the House could be partly elected but that an overwhelmingly elected House would be wrong. I believe that it would be wrong because it would be a rival to the House of Commons. I say that not as a Member of the House of Lords but as someone who was in the House of Commons for 30 years. If we elect a House of Lords, particularly if it is elected by a method of proportional representation, inevitably those who are elected to this place in those circumstances will argue that their mandate is greater and more democratic than that of Members of the House of Commons.

Power in this country must reside in the elected House of Commons entirely. We of course should complement that, in the way we do now and in different, reformed ways to come. That, in my view, is the bottom line. However, I see that there are many cases for reform. It has taken 113 years to get to where we are, and I hope it will not take 113 years to reform. Many ideas will flow from this debate today but ultimately, our position as a revising Chamber, a Chamber for scrutiny and debate, remains unparalleled.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make it clear and put on the record that there is no hierarchy of pain or justice. Everybody touched by the Troubles deserves answers; it is why and how we engage in legacy that is so important. Yesterday’s decision by the Secretary of State is the fulfilment of our commitment made at Weston Park 23 years ago—many years before the establishment of the commission and the appointment of Sir Declan Morgan. However, I am delighted that Sir Declan Morgan has the confidence of the noble Baroness, and I look forward to working with her in the months and perhaps years ahead, depending on how long my appointment lasts, as we discuss these issues in great depth.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords to speak. I suggest that we hear first from the former Secretary of State.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. I am sure she will do a wonderful job as the spokesperson on Northern Ireland. When I was Secretary of State, I received the Cory report, which recommended four public inquiries. We agreed on three, but then deferred the Finucane inquiry for a bit longer because of prosecutions. Then, 20 years ago, as stated in the Statement, I made a commitment in the House of Commons to hold a public inquiry. For various reasons, that did not happen. So it is timely that that is happening now. I very much welcome this Statement and hope it will be the end of a very painful matter. I ask my noble friend, first, about the timescale for this—although she has touched on that—and, secondly, about the consultation that has been held with Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is extremely important that there is a great deal of their involvement in this, and also—it has been test-run by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan—with the Irish Government and the Government of the United States of America.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

There are so many noble Lords in this House who participated and delivered peace in Northern Ireland—none more so than my noble friend Lord Murphy. I am very grateful, both for his mentorship and for the work that he did throughout his time as Secretary of State and that he continues to do to ensure that these matters are raised on a regular basis.

On the specific questions that my noble friend raised, he will know much better than I, given his former roles, that on the timescale, as fast as we may wish to go, we have responsibilities under the Inquiries Act 2005, which we will follow, and we will report to the House in due course. We hope to establish the public inquiry as quickly as possible, and I look forward to returning to your Lordships’ House with more detail as quickly as I can.

With regard to the consultation on future legacy arrangements that I believe my noble friend was touching on, we will of course be working with the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to make sure that they are fully engaged in our future arrangements, and that any future changes to the legacy Act have their confidence to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. On that note, I want to put on record how delighted the Government are that both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive are up and running and that their programme for government was published this week. In terms of engagement with the Republic of Ireland, before we announced the inquiry, the Secretary of State engaged with the Tánaiste, Micheál Martin, and spoke to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland to make sure that everybody was up to date and informed before a decision was made.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL]

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, about 12 years ago, when I was a Member of the House of Commons, I spoke on the Bill that brought in women bishops for the Church of England. In fact, I went to the Library earlier today to ensure that what I said 12 years ago would chime with what I shall say today and that I had not changed my mind in that decade—and I have not.

It was unusual for me to take part in that debate at that time for two reasons, one of which still is the case. The first is that I am a Roman Catholic—my mother’s family were Anglican, but I am a practising Catholic—so what business is it of mine to take part in a debate about whether the Church of England should do this or that? The other reason was that I was an MP representing a Welsh constituency, and the Church in Wales has been disestablished for over 100 years. There are no Welsh bishops represented in the House of Lords. As a Catholic Welsh MP, I decided over a period of nearly 25 years not to take part in debates on these issues because of those two reasons.

However, I decided 12 years ago that I should do so, not necessarily because I agreed with women bishops, although I think I agree with women priests. It will take an awfully long time for my church to get to that position; it needs to get married priests before it gets women priests. I once talked to an eminent Catholic archbishop who said to me, “Well, if you have women priests then the logic says you will have women bishops after that”, and I agreed with that. So, when that Bill came before the House of Commons, I supported it, as I support this one and as I support the right of the 26 Bishops to be Members of this House.

I could not agree less with what the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Birt, said. I respect their views, but I do not agree with them, for a number of reasons. In the first instance, the contributions made to our House by our Bishops are first-class. No, they do not have a monopoly on morality—no one has that—but they talk on issues that are important and they bring a perspective that is different. Women Bishops in particular give a certain perspective that we ought to listen to. Our debates on whole areas, including international affairs and national affairs, are excellent when it comes to the contributions made by our colleague Bishops.

I believe that the Anglican Church is a force for good in our country and in the world. I recall when I was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and before that when I was helping to chair the peace process in Northern Ireland, that the churches—which had over the years a lot to answer for for what happened in that part of our country—were making a particularly important contribution to the peace process. I pay tribute in this place particularly to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who was then the Archbishop of Armagh, and whose contribution to peace in Northern Ireland is second to none. So I do not agree that the contributions are not good; they are good and benefit the people of our country and benefit this House as well.

I also believe it is right to bring a Christian perspective to this House. I suppose when I entered the House of Commons in 1987 more people classified themselves as Christians than they do today, but nearly half of our population still does. I also think that, in the same way that non-Christian people from other faiths attend Church of England and Catholic schools because they believe that there is a moral education that they can get from those schools, so it is that the religious point of view can be expressed through the 26 Bishops on these Benches just below me.

I classify myself as a Christian Socialist—both designations can be unfashionable these days, but they do go together. It was Morgan Phillips, a great Welshman and secretary of the Labour Party, who said that the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than it does to Marx, and I believe he was right. When I joined the Labour Party just 60 years ago next month, there were Labour Party branches in south Wales which opened with a hymn. I am not going to pretend to sing “Cwm Rhondda” in the House of Lords before we conclude this debate, but what I will do is wish this Bill well, wish our Bishops well and wish them continuing membership of this House in the years to come.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We faced each other across the Dispatch Box 25 years ago, but I rather fancy that he should be directing his comments to his own party instead of at us, because of the civil war that has occurred within the Conservative Party over the past number of years. However, I want to speak briefly on Northern Ireland.

Members of your Lordships’ House will recall that Northern Ireland was hardly mentioned during the referendum campaign and that when 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted in favour of remaining, as they did, again that was almost wholly ignored on this side of the Irish Sea. Indeed, Ministers who have since resigned from the Cabinet—the former Foreign Secretary, the former Brexit Secretary and the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—all indicated that they thought that the border issue was not significant and that it could be solved easily. Well, the events of the past 48 hours have proved that to be absolutely wrong. The border and the backstop are the most significant issues at the heart of the current debate on the agreement.

Of course, it is not just the border that is an issue. In the political declaration, for what it is worth, mention is made of security, but there is no mention of the disappearance of the European arrest warrant. We have had three decades of co-operation between the police services north and south, and with the disappearance of that warrant, huge problems will result. The common travel area, which has been about for a very long time, is mentioned in the declaration, but no mention is made of the fact that we will actually return to what it was 40 years ago, because, since we joined the European Union in the 1970s, huge additions to the common travel area have occurred in health, education, employment, law and so on. Moreover, Northern Ireland citizens will be divided between those who will have European Union rights and those who will not. That is a big issue in Northern Ireland.

Yesterday in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Bew, argued powerfully that the principles of the withdrawal agreement are not in line with the Good Friday agreement, and that indeed the withdrawal agreement itself is putting the stability of Northern Ireland at risk. Over the past two wasted years in terms of diplomacy so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the principles of the Good Friday agreement have been ignored, where nationalists and unionists come together to agree on a common course of action. It was the genius of that agreement that, after decades of turmoil and frustration in Northern Ireland, they were able to come together. However, had the two Governments and Members of the House of Lords decided to impose an agreement on the people of Northern Ireland 20 years ago, it would have failed miserably. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said yesterday, it was the people of Northern Ireland, through their political representatives, who worked from the ground up and pursued, agreed and succeeded in bringing about that agreement.

Instead, we have a free-for-all. Many nationalists see Brexit as a means by which we can have a united Ireland. Many unionists see it as a means by which the union can be strengthened even more. That undermines the work of three decades. One of the problems in the negotiations was that the European Union could have delegated the details of the negotiations on Northern Ireland to the Governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Had it done that, a lot of the problems we now face could have been resolved. Instead, the negotiations have been botched. We had the daft decision to put a date in the legislation. We had Brexit Secretaries who never negotiated and were there in name only. The so-called red lines put down by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the negotiations were more about bringing the Conservative Party together than about the national interest—and a fat lot of good it has done them.

At the same time, there have been no institutions in Northern Ireland—no Assembly, no Executive and no north-south bodies—to deal with these issues for two years. That is almost the same length of time as the negotiations have taken. Everybody understands that, had the Assembly been up and running and had the Executive been working, the nationalists and unionists would have had to come together to resolve the issues that currently face Northern Ireland—but they have not done so. They have not got together because there has been no restoration and no urgency on the part of the Government to restore those institutions. Had there been, we would not be in this mess today. We would not have had the chaos of the Brexit issues on borders and backstops had there been a proper Government of Northern Ireland where nationalist and unionists Ministers could have got together, thrashed the issues out and come to a compromise based on the principles of the Good Friday agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said.

But it was not to be, and the result has been two failed negotiations: the failure to restore the institutions in Northern Ireland and the failure of the Brussels negotiations to understand why the principles that underpin the Good Friday agreement should have underpinned the negotiations regarding Brexit borders and the backstop as well. As a result, the withdrawal agreement is unquestionably doomed and, in my view, destined to be a footnote in constitutional history.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the minute.

The previous speech exemplified what I thought large numbers of the Conservative party actually felt about the referendum in Scotland, which was that they were not too troubled about whether the Union was broken up. On 17 and 18 September, all of us who were concerned about the Union and its integrity were deeply worried that it could be lost. We were on the brink of our country breaking up. Happily it did not.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

rose—

[Paul Murphy]

That was a bit quick, but I give way.

[Jake Berry]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the biggest danger faced by our United Kingdom is failure to deal with the English question? Failure to take any action will put the United Kingdom at risk, as English nationalism will seek to break it up.

[Paul Murphy]

I do not accept that for one second. The biggest threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom would have been for the yes campaign to win the Scottish referendum. I am saying not that the yes campaign was insincere but that I did not agree with it. On the following Friday morning, the Prime Minister effectively said, “Thank you very much, Scotland. You are now still part of the United Kingdom.” He then went on for the rest of that speech to talk about the West Lothian question, which struck me as extremely unusual. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) quite rightly referred to the fact that the Union itself is threatened by this constant sniping about the so-called great advantage enjoyed by Welsh, Northern Ireland or Scottish Members of Parliament. English Members make up 85% of this House of Commons. They can swamp all the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Members put together.

I know of no country that has a system in which there can be either first or second-class Members of the federal or central legislature. Spain, for example, has an asymmetric system of devolution, but Members representing the Basque country or Catalonia, which have highly developed systems of devolution, have the same rights as those representing other parts of Spain. The reality is that we cannot separate Members of Parliament from the mandate on which they were elected.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I represent a border constituency. Although health is devolved in Wales, our children’s hospital and our heart hospital are in the north-west of England. Neurosurgery for my constituents is done in the north-west of England. I have a view on behalf of the people I represent about what happens in the English health service.

[Paul Murphy]

Of course, and my hon. Friend should therefore be able to vote on matters affecting the hospitals in the English health service that most of his constituents go to.

I am fortunate enough to have seven general elections under my belt. I lost the first—quite rightly, too—which was for a seat in the west of England. Nevertheless, I would have been elected on the same mandate for the constituency of Wells in Somerset as I then was for my Welsh constituency in six successive general elections. I am a British Member of Parliament who happens to represent a Welsh constituency. I am therefore a Member of this United Kingdom Parliament in exactly the same way as any other Member representing one of the 650 seats.

I hope that the Leader of the House, when his Cabinet Committee meets to discuss these matters, will consider the constitutional mess there could be after a general election. When the leader of a party who has the potential to become Prime Minister goes to the palace, the Queen will ask, “Have you a majority and a mandate in the United Kingdom?”, and they will say, “Yes, Ma’am.” Then she will have to ask, “Have you a majority in England?”, because we would have a separate system in the House of Commons in order to deal with matters for which we have all been elected. I was elected on a mandate that included dealing with the English health service and education system, so long as it is a British Parliament that represents people in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I think that there is an enormous danger.

The Leader of the House said that the issue of English laws being dealt with by English MPs is simple, but it is not. We have been dealing with that for 30 or 40 years, even before devolution in 1998. The Leader of the House will remember, as an historian, that in the 1960s a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, Peter Thorneycroft—he represented the Welsh seat of Monmouth—said clearly that there cannot be two classes of Members of Parliament. Some years later, in the ’70s, the Kilbrandon commission said that regardless of what legislative assemblies are set up, British Members of Parliament must all have the same duties, responsibilities and rights.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was absolutely right when he pointed out that the Scottish people voted so that their Scottish Members of Parliament would have less say over affairs that do affect their constituents, but no reduction whatsoever in their say over what goes on in the primary schools, nurseries, hospitals and surgeries in my constituency in East Yorkshire.

[Paul Murphy]

I rather fancy that not one MP or MSP has had that argument raised with them when they go knocking on doors.

The issue of English laws for English Members of Parliament is also impractical. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Wales, we always had to deal with the issue of whether a Bill was actually an English Bill. Of 400 Bills introduced over the past few years, only eight were purely English. There are clauses that affect Wales, for example, and Bills that overall affect Wales, so we cannot easily disentangle them. If it is only eight out of 400, it is hardly worth it.

Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) noted, the cross-border issues are hugely important, particularly in north-east Wales and north-west England, where there is huge fluidity on both sides of the border. We have not mentioned the Barnett formula, but Lord Barnett—we should mention him, as he is 91 today—would say that the formula is consequential on what happens to British spending.

Very few Members have mentioned the other place. A Welsh peer, a Scottish peer or a Northern Ireland peer would be prevented from voting on issues affecting England if the Government had their way, but over there, up the corridor, the peers can do precisely what they want to. People might say, “Ah, they’re unelected”, but what would have happened if there had been a yes vote in the referendum? We would have had to work out who was or was not a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish peer. All these issues are very difficult and complex, and I do not believe for one second that we can resolve them easily. I think there is an issue with the McKay commission. There are ways of dealing with our Standing Orders, perhaps at the Committee stages of Bills, that can perhaps address some of these points.

Ultimately, the only way to resolve the issue of devolution and English laws for English Members of Parliament is for there to be devolution for the English regions. It might not be the same in all areas—London would be different from Manchester, and Manchester different from the north-east of England—but there is undoubtedly a growing feeling that there should be devolution for our great English cities. The time to start looking at these issues will be when that happens, not when we need to emphasise, above all, the integrity of the United Kingdom.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said that the Conservatives, good Unionists that we are, had not supported the Better Together campaign. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you and I attended the first meeting of Better Together in London, strongly supporting—[Interruption.] No, we did attend that meeting. Conservatives took part in the campaign. I think that Ruth Davidson has been widely praised in that regard. Certainly in my constituency we were rooting for the Scots to stay in the Union, and it is insulting to say otherwise.

Even in Hertfordshire, in the middle of England—it is perhaps worth considering this if one is from a different part of the UK—my constituents were writing to me to say how important it was to them that the UK should stay together. One wrote that having come from a forces background, he had served with people from all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, and it was very important to him that we should stay together. Many others wrote with their memories of working and fighting together for the United Kingdom. There was real enthusiasm and pleasure in Hertfordshire that the Scots chose to stay.

[Paul Murphy]

Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that I was in no way suggesting that the Conservative party, as a party, was in favour of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom—far from it. He is quite right: the Conservative party in Scotland did a very good job. I was hinting—perhaps more than hinting—that a number of his party’s Back Benchers were not as in favour of the outcome as he is.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I would not accept that.

The political parties have now promised even more powers to Scotland on a tight timetable. It is very encouraging that the document that was promised by the end of the month has come out three weeks early and that we seem to be making the sort of progress that we all would have hoped for with the so-called vow.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kennedy]

That is a very good suggestion, and I am pleased that Labour Front Benchers are nodding in agreement. That suggestion is contained in the group of amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me, which I mentioned.

In the Isle of Wight, in particular, there has been considerable uproar about these issues. The uproar is yet to come on the mainland highlands of Scotland, but when it does—I say this in all seriousness and I do make a party political point here— generation upon generation of communities that have stuck with the flame of Liberal tradition and history in the United Kingdom through thick and thin, when it has been all but extinguished in many other parts, will absolutely fail to comprehend why Liberal Democrats in government have put their name to such a measure, which takes no account of the very special peripheral circumstances of communities that have helped to maintain the Liberal cause over generations.

It is never too late for Governments to think again. This Government should think again, and my colleagues and I will divide the House to encourage them to do just that.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is an enormous privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy). I have always had great admiration for him, as he knows, but the points that he has made about the Government’s intransigent and hard-line views are extremely refreshing and, if I might say so, devastating. He rightly goes to the heart of our democracy. At the end of the day, it is the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his or her constituents that, in many ways, identifies British parliamentary democracy. The drift towards an American-style district, which is purely based on numbers and not on communities themselves, is an attack on the very basis of our democracy in the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly points, as we can in Wales, to the preposterous anomalies that will result from the Government’s policy if it is allowed to continue. There will be enormous constituencies in Wales, just as there will be in Scotland. One constituency might even stretch from the south Wales valleys to Wrexham. It would perhaps not take five hours to drive from one end to the other, but it would certainly take three hours—[Hon. Members: “Five.”] It depends how fast one drives, I suppose. I take my hon. Friends’ point, and they make it very properly—it is a long way from one part of Wales to the other.

I have had the privilege of representing a south Wales valley for 23 and a half years in this place, and the valleys of Wales are very distinct. Our communities run north and south, not east and west. Dismembering those valleys or including them with others will make complete nonsense of the community basis of our constituencies, whether in Wales and Scotland, or, indeed, in Cardiff, which the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) will undoubtedly now talk about.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the history of the valley communities, but he may recall that when Aneurin Bevan was elected to the House in 1929, he represented three valley communities, not one or two. The right hon. Gentleman is over-stressing his point a little.

[Paul Murphy]

I cannot actually remember the time when Aneurin Bevan was in the House of Commons, but he is still my great hero. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the situation he describes was exceptional because of the heads of the valleys situation, and he knows my point is valid. Our local authorities in south Wales are based on valleys, and our constituencies are based on valleys. However, the point is that our constituencies are also based on communities. What Government in their right mind could think that the Isle of Wight could be anything other than a constituency? The rigidity with which the Government are dealing with these issues is beyond belief.

I want now to talk to amendment 14 and to raise the business of Wales in so far as it is represented in the House of Commons. I had the great privilege of being Secretary of State for Wales on two occasions. The fact that I held that office at all was a recognition by our constitution that there should be territorial Secretaries of State—for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. There is machinery in the House of Commons for dealing with Welsh and Scottish matters, although I must tell the Wales Secretary, who is in the Chamber, that the refusal to hold a Welsh Grand Committee on this issue is a disgrace. When I was Wales Secretary, I held 22 Welsh Grand Committees—we debated anything that the people of Wales wanted their public representatives to debate, whether they were Conservative, Liberal, Plaid Cymru or Labour.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Why does my right hon. Friend think the Wales Secretary has not held a Welsh Grand Committee?

[Paul Murphy]

I have not the slightest idea other than that the Secretary of State wants to avoid a debate or the difficult questions that might be raised. The constitutional aspects of the Welsh Grand Committee will be debated elsewhere in the House this week. Wales Members have taken the unusual step of calling a meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party, which was established in the later part of the 19th century—it represents all Wales MPs. It will meet under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on Wednesday as an alternative to the Welsh Grand Committee, but we should never be in this position in the first place. I think the Secretary of State, for whom I have great regard, has caused more trouble by not allowing debate in the Grand Committee.

The House of Commons has special machinery for dealing with Wales business, but taking 25% of our Members of Parliament away goes completely against the devolution settlement that was voted for by the people of Wales in 1997. That settlement is that we should have not only an Assembly, but proper representation by Members of Parliament from Wales. We certainly should not have less representation than we had in 1832, when it was established that there would be 35 Members.

The Minister represents the Forest of Dean, which is a distinct community—it has historically been represented by Labour Members, but not since the previous Parliament. The miners there would have recognised, because they understood such issues, that there is a special case in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland for smaller nations to be represented in the UK Parliament. Such representation guards the interests of the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government, from the Wales Secretary to the Minister who is here today, the Deputy Prime Minister and the rest of their colleagues, have singularly failed to understand that that representation, if nothing else, guarantees the Union, because Wales is properly represented as a small nation.

I am not a Welsh speaker but I very much respect those who are. Some 21% of the people in Wales speak Welsh as their first language. The Welsh Affairs Committee heard that minorities in European countries are properly represented in their Parliaments. That should also apply to Welsh speakers, but under the proposals, Welsh speakers will be less well represented in Welsh constituencies than now.

The Government have been terrible on this matter. Wales has suffered in other respects, including from the cuts, but it has suffered very badly because the Government have not understood the nature of the Union. They are supposed to be the great Unionists, but they threaten the Union by taking a quarter of Wales MPs away.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was not Members of Parliament who decided the minimum number of seats for Wales in this place but the Speaker’s Conference? We have been denied a debate on the current reforms in the Welsh Grand Committee, but is it not logical to debate changing the number of seats after a referendum on greater law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales?

[Paul Murphy]

Of course.

Another aspect of the Bill is the Government’s singular failure to consult the First Ministers for Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Had they held proper consultations on the Bill, it could have been different, but there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Welsh and Scottish Affairs Committees have condemned the Government for their lack of scrutiny.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend makes a strong point. Does he agree that the excellent report published last week by the Welsh Affairs Committee is an indication of the strength of feeling in Wales that he describes, because it was a unanimous report?

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed—the Chair of the Committee is my neighbour, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). The Committee’s report condemns the Government for how they have dealt with this matter.

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an astonishing argument. Does he not understand that the preservation of the Union will be best served by remedying the democratic deficit and allaying the anger that voters in England feel because they are under-represented compared with voters in Wales and Scotland?

[Paul Murphy]

Absolutely to the contrary. The Union is protected because it recognises the different parts within it—whether Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Devolution has strengthened the Union, but it will be weakened by these proposals, because the Bill fundamentally goes against the concept of the representation of smaller nations within a United Kingdom.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman served with great distinction as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as well as Secretary of State for Wales. He makes a valid point. At the times of the Belfast and St Andrews agreements, it was clear that part of the settlement was that there should be no question of any change in the representation of Northern Ireland in the House. That was never raised as an issue, because everyone was agreed and settled on it. That was the basis on which devolution took place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

The Government have ripped up that settlement, as they have ripped up the devolution settlements in Wales and Scotland.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case for Wales, but the proposals affect many communities in England. My small town of Rotherham, which has three MPs, would rather affiliate or fuse with the Western Isles or Wales than have anything to do with Sheffield. There will be huge anger, concern and distress if we are reduced to American-style districts with boundaries rejigged to suit the Government. They talk of a democratic deficit, but they are destroying the traditions of this House of Commons for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Paul Murphy]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I would not want to come between Sheffield and Rotherham Members, but I understand his point. The Bill is a two-pronged attack on our parliamentary traditions. On the one hand, it reduces the link between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituency and the community that that constituency represents; and on the other, the Government’s policies on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland threaten the very integrity of the Union.

[Angela Smith]

I should like to put on record the fact that Sheffield would love to absorb Rotherham constituencies. Sheffield’s much greater fear is that it will end up sharing constituencies with Derbyshire or West Yorkshire or, God forbid, even Leeds.

[Paul Murphy]

Again, I would not want to interfere in Yorkshire traditions.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the 88-year-old state of the United Kingdom is a very unbalanced Union? Some 8% to 10% of Members are from Scotland, and there is a percentage of MPs from Wales. However, if the UK were a proper union between nations, the percentage would be more equal between the constituent parts rather than grossly imbalanced. For the record, I would prefer it if Scotland needed to send no one down here, but this 88-year-old state is unbalanced.

[Paul Murphy]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that whatever his ideal, he is against a reduction in the number of Scotland and Wales MPs to represent Scottish and Welsh interests in the House.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I totally agree with him, and nobody is a fiercer Unionist than I am, but the way to preserve our United Kingdom is to show equal respect to all parts of it, meaning every little corner of every country in the UK. How can he argue that one Member of Parliament should come to the House with a greater weight of votes behind them than Members from other parts of the UK? That is not fair and it is not equal.

[Paul Murphy]

Is the hon. Lady not aware that many countries, including the United States and Spain, have proper representation of minorities and countries within countries in a very special way? But I suppose that some Members from England would not understand that.

[Chris Ruane]

My hon. Friend gave some excellent international examples. Is there any danger that those countries will be copying this Tory model in revised constitutions?

[Paul Murphy]

I very much doubt it. The whole point is that the Government have handled the matter atrociously. At the end of the day, this is not about better democracy; frankly, it is about the fortunes of the Conservative party. In taking that approach, the whole basis of our parliamentary democracy will be threatened.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I wish to speak to my amendment 207, but first may I say how much I agreed with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—I am surprised to be saying it, but he will be even more surprised—who spoke a great deal of sense about not making constituencies purely numerical compartmentalisations? This country has such a rich history of communities, and when it is a case of a few hundred here or a few hundred there, we ought to be more generous than this very rigorous and rigid approach. Many Government Members, as well as Opposition Members, feel that.

This matter ought to be looked at in a broader context and have more cross-party support. The one area on which I disagree with Opposition Members is the advantage to the Conservative party, which I think will be remarkably small.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to backlight exactly the sort of anomalies that will be created by the Bill. We are meant to be legislating for the whole of the United Kingdom and its constituent parts, so let us not legislate to create anomalies.

[Paul Murphy]

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that a great deal of negotiation and compromise led to the Good Friday agreement, which created the situation in which the parliamentary constituencies equated with the Assembly constituencies. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the actions of the Government are such that, if their proposals are accepted, all that work could be jeopardised at a stroke?

[Mark Durkan]

I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who served with great distinction in Northern Ireland, not only as Secretary of State but as Minister of State. He was also the person who chaired the Strand 1 negotiations. Everyone rightly praises George Mitchell for his role, but not enough praise is conferred on the right hon. Gentleman for his role, and for the patience and perspicacity that he showed at that time. I must remind him, however, that in those negotiations, some of us were advocating that Northern Ireland should be granted the alternative vote system for Westminster elections as well. He and his right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister resisted that proposal, however.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Given the experience of recent days, and the Minister’s references to the time that has been allowed for debate—a couple of hours this afternoon and this evening to debate these very important matters concerning the number of seats and the abolition of the age-old right to have local public inquiries—I am confident that the other place will examine these matters in great detail and will, I hope, bring common sense to bear.

[Paul Murphy]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Is he aware that, so far as I know, there is an anomaly that in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales the Boundary Commission inquiries for UK parliamentary constituencies are to be abolished, but remain for the two Assemblies and the Parliament?

[Mr Dodds]

In Northern Ireland, the parliamentary constituency boundaries are the Northern Ireland Assembly boundaries. I know the position is different in Scotland and Wales. That is why, at least for Northern Ireland—and for all the reasons that I and others have outlined this evening, it should be the case for the whole country—I appeal to the Government to think very carefully about the implications for our country of the decision to push ahead with abolition.