Welsh Affairs

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I remind the House that this used to be called the St David’s day debate. This is not St David’s day, but the feast day of St Caron of Tregaron, a third century Cardiganshire saint. I hope that we can remember him during the course of the day. I do not know whether this will be my last speech in this Chamber, but it might be. It will certainly be my last speech in a Welsh day debate.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) mentioned the first time that the House met to consider Welsh affairs in this format in 1944. I cannot remember that, as old as I am, nor can I remember Lady Megan Lloyd George in the House, although I remember her. However, I remember my first contribution to a debate on Welsh affairs 27 years ago, from the Opposition Benches. Peter Walker was the Secretary of State and the late Alan Williams, whose life we have commemorated and celebrated this week, was the shadow Secretary of State. When I looked at the speeches that I and others made on that occasion, I could see that things have not changed all that much. We had a Conservative Government with Mrs Thatcher as the Prime Minister and the burning issue was the poll tax. Today, of course, we have the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) as Prime Minister and in the valleys of south Wales and elsewhere we have the bedroom tax as the poll tax mark 2, something that will undoubtedly be a major issue in the weeks and months ahead and in the general election.

I was interested in the points that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made about accountability and fairness and about the need not to blame Westminster all the time for the ills that confront Wales. Let us remember that when we were debating Welsh matters 27 years ago, there was no Welsh Assembly. There was a Welsh Office and the Secretary of State was a Member of the British Cabinet. In 1987, the amount of money being taken away from Welsh local authorities was significant, and that has not changed either. Many local authorities in Wales are setting their budgets this week. Mine in Torfaen set its budget yesterday; the very able Councillor Anthony Hunt presented the budget to the local authority. He said that he had to see a reduction of £6 million this year from my local authority’s budget on top of £6 million last year and probably another £6 million next year. The Government have reduced the amount of money given to the Welsh Government, so £1.5 billion has been cut from the Welsh budget. Cuts are being pushed from one tier of government to another, so ultimately the local council has to implement the decisions that result from that. Those cuts have come indirectly from Whitehall to Cardiff, whereas 27 years ago it was a more direct route, but the effect is exactly the same. Local authorities today and then face enormous difficulties in dealing with them.

I want to turn the attention of the House to the nature of Welsh matters in this Parliament after the general election of 7 May. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire did well to go to the Backbench Business Committee and secure this important debate, but I regret that they had to. It is not as well attended as it would normally be, for obvious reasons; we face a general election in some weeks time. The Welsh day debate was set up in 1944 to ensure that there was a forum here in the House of Commons not just for Welsh MPs to discuss here in Westminster what matters in Wales, but for every Member who wished to do so take part.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. He will recall that a couple of years ago he and I applied for such a debate and were eventually successful. The point that he makes is correct. Everyone should be able to participate in the debate, not just Welsh Members. It is important that that should be so.

[Paul Murphy]

As an aside, I add my tribute to my right hon. Friend. He is leaving, like me. We have been good friends for a long time, and we have attended these debates in the House over many years. It is important that we retain the Welsh day debate, the Welsh Grand Committee and the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, chaired very ably by my neighbour the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). It is important that we retain the position of Secretary of State for Wales, to be held either by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) or by the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), the current Secretary of State, after the election. I have nothing against the current Secretary of State—he is a fine man—but I hope that the positions are reversed, for obvious reasons.

If we do not ensure that the institutions affecting Wales are retained here in the United Kingdom Parliament, we will affect the way in which our country, by which I mean the United Kingdom, goes forward constitutionally in the decades ahead. We have already seen an enormous change in the political landscape, not simply because we have had devolution for 15 years or so in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The changes have been beneficial to the people of Wales and undoubtedly, as a consequence of the Command Paper, that will continue. However, we face even greater seismic change.

The Scottish referendum was won—ish—by we who opposed separation for Scotland, but in a sense it was a pyrrhic victory. I do not know what is going to happen—obviously, no one does—after 7 May, but an earthquake may well occur in Scotland if the Scottish National party gains the number of seats that pollsters and Lord Ashcroft have predicted only today. They suggest that almost every seat in Scotland will be represented by the SNP. I do not think that that will be the case—I certainly hope that it is not—but clearly a big change is happening. We have to reflect on all the changes and how they impact on this place.

I think that the Prime Minister made a fundamental mistake the day after the referendum by referring to the issue of English votes and English laws. I am not saying that there is not an issue; the so-called West Lothian question has been an issue for every year that I have been in this place. It has to be resolved, but in a consensual manner. The impression that was given in Scotland, and indeed beyond, the day after the result of the referendum was, “Okay, you voted to stay in the United Kingdom, and now we are going to take away the powers of Scottish Members of Parliament.” That was a grave error, not in terms of the constitutional question—we have to resolve that one way or the other—but presentationally. It meant that those of us who wanted the Union to continue, especially in Scotland, were put in a difficult position. We were told that, despite the so-called victory for those who wanted the Union, they would have to be denigrated as Members of this House.

So when everyone except a few of us is returned to this House of Commons from Wales, we will have to reflect seriously on the responsibility and role of Welsh Members of Parliament as Members of a United Kingdom Parliament. I am a British Member of the United Kingdom Parliament who happens to represent a Welsh constituency. Everything that I do can be done by any other Member, whether they represent Scotland, Northern Ireland or England. That in my view should be the case. We may be able to change the methods by which the House of Commons works in order to deal with the West Lothian question, but essentially we are all the same in this place.

I have done a bit of research on other countries, and I can find no country in Europe or beyond that makes a distinction between Members of the federal Parliaments and their national Parliaments in what they can or cannot do. Therefore, although many English Members are aggrieved, their grievance cannot go to the extent that it undermines the fundamental nature of the United Kingdom and this Parliament. It would be a grave mistake if we went down that particular line.

I have had the great privilege of doing the job of Secretary of State for Wales on two occasions under two Prime Ministers, and I believe that there is a job to be done by whoever holds that office, from whatever party. I am not speaking in a partisan way. In fact, those hon. Members who have known me for some years will realise that that is not my style. Often in the House most of us agree on most things—not always; that is the nature of politics, and nor should it be.

On this matter we should agree. If we did away with the territorial Secretaries of State, the link between the devolved countries and Westminster and Whitehall would disappear. The role of the Wales Secretary is to represent Wales in the Cabinet and to represent the Government in Wales. We would be foolish to do away with that vital link between two Governments and two Parliaments. I can quote dozens of occasions when journalists here in London who do not understand the nature of devolution said, “Let’s put them all together. Let’s do away with the Secretaries of State.” Indeed, many Members of this House believed in that, too, not understanding the very nature of the job. No one is going to take much notice of me, but I make a plea to whoever becomes the Government and the Prime Minister to retain the territorial Secretaries of State. If we do not, it will be another nail in the coffin of the Union, which is so important for all of us as Members of this British Parliament.

I have had the great privilege of representing my constituency for nearly three decades. I have represented the good people of the eastern valley of Gwent. I hope that whoever succeeds me will have the same duties, responsibilities, privileges and rights. I have been the Member for Torfaen, but also a Member of Parliament of this United Kingdom like any other Member. If we do not maintain that, not only the House but our Union will be in danger.

Government Policies (Wales)

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

My hon. Friend is of course right. That is why it looks increasingly as though the bedroom tax will cost the Exchequer money, not save it money. It is voodoo economics of the worst kind, because it penalises the most vulnerable people in our society. It is having an even greater impact in Wales, and the Secretary of State should acknowledge that.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

On the bedroom tax and the discretionary grant, the Secretary of State will know that the grant is given to local authorities, and most of it is made up of local authorities’ own money, not a direct extra grant from central Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I have been called some things over the years in politics, but I have never been called a metropolitan liberal before. I rather fancy that most of my colleagues in the Welsh parliamentary Labour party would never be called metropolitan liberals.

I believe the Secretary of State is genuine and sincere about wanting to work with the Welsh First Minister, and I believe that his attendance at various events is, as I said, something that we can admire, but I fear that his boss is not of the same mind. He might have been standing next to him last week in Newport, but since the last general election, when the Prime Minister said that there would be a respect agenda in Wales and in Scotland, that has effectively collapsed. It collapsed when the Government tried to ensure that the number of Welsh parliamentary constituencies would be unfairly reduced. It collapsed at the time of the Scottish referendum, when the Union itself was under threat, when the Prime Minister came out and said that all that mattered to him now was not to keep the Union going but to diminish and downgrade the presence of Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament and their responsibilities in this House of Commons.

The Secretary of State went on to talk about us all wanting to talk down Wales and the Welsh economy. For the past 18 months the Government have not stopped talking down the Welsh national health service. What is the difference? Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that talking down the Welsh health service means that he is demeaning consultants, GPs, nurses and everybody else who works in the Welsh national health service? We cannot have it both ways. Either he says that there is devolution, Wales must go its own way and the Government will accept what happens there, or he intervenes for party political purposes and talks down, in this case, the health service.

The Secretary of State referred to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) about the jobs growth policy of the Welsh Government, and more or less said that that does not matter and that people would have jobs anyway. That is a preposterous thing to say, because the Jobs Growth Wales programme has been a magnificent success, with 16,000 new job opportunities over two years. Only last week, there was an announcement of 350 new jobs in my constituency —good jobs, too. What my colleagues have been saying here in this Chamber is that of course we welcome the reduction in unemployment, but the jobs that people are going into are not of the sort we particularly want them to go into. The new jobs that have come to Cwmbran are precisely the sort of jobs I want my constituents to work in.

The Minister also talked about Europe, responding to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). A great Tory grandee once said that the secret weapon of the Conservative party is loyalty. Over the past few months, the Conservative Back Benchers have erupted over Europe, with the loss of two Members to the United Kingdom Independence party and possibly more to come. What sort of signal does that give to businesses that want to invest in Wales? What sort of signal does it give to firms in my constituency which rely overwhelmingly on our membership of the EU? Component car manufacturers in my constituency would go to continental Europe literally on the day we left the EU.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

As always, the right hon. Gentleman is making very considered points. However, will he explain why the Welsh Government have decided to cut the budget for Jobs Growth Wales if it is such a great success?

[Paul Murphy]

I fancy it is because of the money that has been cut from the budget generally, because of what the Government here are doing by reducing the amount of money that is coming through the block grant. The Secretary of State actually said somewhere in his speech—he is getting a bit like his boss now, making things up from time to time—that there was no inward investment in Wales in 13 years of the Labour Government. That is rubbish—of course there was inward investment in Wales during those 13 years. As Secretary of State, I went around talking to firms that had benefited from inward investment and so on.

[Stephen Crabb]

I did not actually say that, and I apologise if I did give that impression. The point I was making was that there was a collapse in the inward investment: compared with what we had seen in the ’80s and ’90s, there was a huge decline over that 13-year period in the amount of inward investment coming to Wales. Thankfully, with the Welsh Government and UK Government working together, we are seeing that go back up.

[Paul Murphy]

The Welsh Government are certainly doing it, because foreign investment in Wales has increased by 30% whereas the figure for England is 10%—I rather suspect the work of the Welsh Government has made the difference.

The other issue the Secretary of State has to take into account is the welfare policies of the Government. In effect, those changes in Wales are doing two things that are detrimental to the people of Wales. I agree with reforming the welfare agenda and I agree that we should not have workless families in Wales—we all agree on that—but the great brunt of the cost of these welfare reforms often falls not on those who are out of work but on those who are in work. Those people in work are suffering sometimes more than anybody else.

Last week’s report by Sheffield Hallam university showed graphically how the south Wales valleys have been hit harder by welfare reform than any other part of the United Kingdom. We can talk about the impact on individuals, which is catastrophic, but we can also talk about the sucking out of the local economies the money that would have gone in had these people still been receiving these benefits. The reforms will cost £34 million a year in my constituency alone, and the average loss of income per working age adult in Torfaen is nearly £600 a year—in one ward, Trevethin, the figure is £850. Some 3,000 jobs in the south Wales valleys could have been created but for the impact of these so-called welfare reforms put in place over the past few months and years, which have been pretty botched.

Finally, I wish to refer to the bedroom tax and make no apology for doing so. One of the first things the new Labour Government will do is abolish it, and everybody in Wales will cheer. Not only is it cruel and wicked, but it is not working. Some 20% of housing benefit claimants in my constituency are affected. In the first year of the policy Bron Afon, which runs social housing, had 268 tenants fall into arrears; we are talking about some £63,000 of arrears that people never had before until this came about. That is not helping anybody. It does not help the tenants, the local authority or the social landlords, and it again takes out of the local economy vital money that could be used to boost local businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. Ultimately, that is why we have seen an enormous increase in the number of people using food banks in both my constituency and the rest of Wales. Until two or three years ago, I never saw a food bank. Now, we visit them time and again. Our churches and our chapels collect for them every Sunday. That increase is a direct result of the Government’s policies in Wales, which will undoubtedly be rejected by the people of Wales next year. We will then have a Government in Cardiff and a Government in Westminster working together for the benefit of the people of Wales.

Welfare Reform (Welsh Valleys)

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alun Cairns]

In a moment—with the greatest of respect, I would like to make an element of progress, certainly at the outset.

We have taken steps to deal with the legacy of a welfare system that encouraged dependency and penalised those who wanted to work. The benefits system was clearly broken. It did not work for claimants, for the economy or the people of those communities or for the nation’s finances. According to the Work and Pensions Committee, a parent who increased their hours from 16 to 30 hours of work a week would gain less than £1 for every extra hour they worked. It was hardly a system that incentivised people to do the right thing. That sort of example underlines absolutely the need for reform.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept the thrust of the Beatty-Fothergill report? In Torfaen, which is a valleys constituency, £34 million is sucked out of the local economy every year, depriving it of expansion and entrepreneurship in my constituency, just like all the other Welsh constituencies. Do the Government accept that that is a really serious issue that we need to look at?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, but that report does not take account of the incentives that are built into the welfare reforms, nor does it recognise the increased income that the poorest in the community will receive from the universal credit. I will come to that.

Welsh Affairs

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

That ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, necessary as it is, shows how truncated what used to be the great St David’s day debate, which has been held in this House since 1944, has become. It has been reduced to an hour and a half with seven-minute limits at the tail end of a Thursday. Of course it is not St David’s day today. It is the feast day of St Colette of France, a well-known mediaeval saint and, among other things, the patron saint of pregnant women.

I want to talk not about pregnant women but about a serious matter that is becoming a scourge in Wales, in my constituency and across the United Kingdom. I refer to the absolutely inappropriately misnamed legal highs. I have no doubt that there are many Members who have some knowledge about the people who sell such substances to our constituents. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), we have suffered the scourge of legal high shops, or head shops. There is one in Pontnewydd in Cwmbran and one in Newport.

Since the shops have opened, there has been an increase in the number of youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17 affected by these particular drugs, according to the accident and emergency department at the Royal Gwent hospital. Between 2012 and 2013, the Gwent drug interventions programme in Cwmbran tested 500 people in police custody for legal highs, 70% of whom came back positive. In an attempt to deal with those serious issues, the two shops were raided last October. Five people were arrested and 58 different substances were seized and sent for testing. The shops were temporarily closed, but they are now back, and another one has opened on Osbourne road in Pontypool, further up the valley in my constituency.

We can look at the websites of these dreadful places, as young people undoubtedly do. This is just one example. The owners of the shop ask the question, “What are legal highs?” and the site states that they

“are substances made from assorted herbs, herbal extracts and ‘research chemicals’. They produce the same, or similar effects, to drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy, but are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. They are however, considered illegal under current medicines legislation to sell, supply or advertise for ‘human consumption’. To get round this sellers” –

that is, the owners of the shop themselves –

“refer to them as research chemicals, plant food, bath crystals or pond cleaner.”

The site concedes that the effects of these so-called legal highs are no different from the effects of those that are illegal.

One product called “Exodus Damnation”, which is currently advertised on the shop’s website, was the cause of a near fatal heart attack suffered by 17-year-old Matt Ford in Canterbury. In Pontypool in my constituency, 176 people signed a petition saying that the shop should not be opened. Their views were strongly expressed to the police and local authorities, all of whom could do absolutely nothing. It is simply not right that our councils, our police forces and our law enforcement agencies can do virtually nothing to stop such shops opening and poisoning hundreds and thousands of young Welsh people with these appalling so-called highs.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important subject. Does he also agree that the long-term health implications of the substances that some young people are taking should also make us extremely worried? We do not know what is in them and that could lead to serious problems in the future.

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed, we do not know that. People have been temporarily blinded by such substances and have had large lumps come out on their bodies, and it could be that in the long term they will suffer even greater illnesses.

One of these groups of shops, called Chill South Wales, has a Facebook page on which it promotes its products. The most recent post is an image of four children’s cartoon characters with a range of drugs paraphernalia. We have looked at the list of 394 Facebook friends; many of them are still at school and some are as young as 12. Those young people have no idea what they are taking and no way of knowing the possible dangers or the long-term health risks. These products are just as dangerous as illegal drugs, if not more so as people unwittingly think that they are safe because they are legal and are being sold on our high streets. That could not be further from the truth.

To be fair, I think the Government are doing what they can by using temporary class drug orders to ban substances as they come along, but it is a game of catch-up: as soon as one substance is banned, another appears in the marketplace. More than 250 substances have been banned, but more are appearing at a rate of one a week.

The Home Office review is to be welcomed.

[Hywel Williams]

As a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I visited a forensic lab just outside London and was shown a selection of the drugs that had been confiscated in the few weeks before our visit. The system is now privatised and those I spoke to reported that they found it very difficult to keep up with the novel substances as they were imported, mainly from China. Is the right hon. Gentleman content that the Government are putting enough money into the forensic service to keep up with these novel drugs?

[Paul Murphy]

I certainly think that many more resources need to be put into this and we should use all available avenues to alert and warn our young people of the dangers of these drugs. Our schools, colleges, education services and local authorities must do all they can to let people know how terrible, dangerous and toxic these drugs are.

We must certainly consider giving local authorities special powers to close down the shops and I think that we should legislate to do so. Perhaps we could adopt the model they have in New Zealand, where the onus is on suppliers to prove that the substances are safe. A lot more thought must go into this.

Today’s debate is, of course, about Wales, and this is an ideal opportunity for the UK Government and the Welsh Government to work together, as they have different responsibilities but the same aim of trying to deal with these terrible things. I have worked with my local Assembly Member, Lynne Neagle, on this matter. I believe that there is a case for the Secretary of State or the Minister to contact their counterparts in Cardiff Bay to see whether we can tackle this appalling abuse. One great advantage of a Welsh affairs debate is that we can raise such issues on the Floor of the House of Commons, which since devolution has not been quite so easy to do. I am sure that our constituents do not see the distinction when it comes to the Welsh Government being in charge of health and the United Kingdom Government being in charge of criminal justice. Both Governments need to ensure that we deal with this terrible plague affecting our young people in Wales.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

For me, as the MP for Montgomeryshire, there is no more enjoyable political experience than speaking in this Chamber in a Welsh affairs debate linked to St David’s day. In fact, I have moved from my usual place on the back row because I wanted to make my speech as close as I am ever likely to be to the seat from which Lord Roberts spoke—his attitude to Welsh affairs was very similar to mine—and indeed from which spoke the most extraordinary Welsh politician of the last century, David Lloyd George. He led a Conservative-Liberal coalition a very long time ago. I enjoy visiting his museum. I promise not to indulge in the kinds of rhetorical flourishes he used when speaking in the House.

[Paul Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman interests the House with his reference to Lloyd George and the coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals. He will, of course, remember what happened to the Liberal party after that coalition fell.

[Glyn Davies]

I am hoping to make a speech without any sour notes, if possible.

My main political interest over recent decades has been the interests of Wales. I am unashamedly a Welsh politician. For many years I was involved in developing the Welsh economy—a new economy for Wales after the devastation of the beginning of the last century—by working with the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Tourist Board and the Development Board for Rural Wales. Through the late ’80s and early ’90s, those organisations did a magnificent job in developing the Welsh economy. I think that they were wound up too soon. Clearly, all quangos are wound up in the end, but I think they were wound up before the job was done, a decision that was taken, I believe, on the basis of prejudice, rather than evidence.

I am intensely proud of being a Welshman. It influences my politics in virtually everything I do in this Chamber. I simply do not accept that to be independently minded, to be culturally and linguistically proud, to be emotionally linked to our Welsh history and to be aware of our distinctive nationhood should ever be the preserve of Welsh nationalists, of Plaid Cymru. It is, and must always be, a part of Conservative philosophy.

There are a million issues I could speak about, but I will touch on just a few. The first is an economic view from rural mid-Wales, where I live. We know that Wales is not a coherent geographical unit. Economically, north Wales is always linked to the north-west of England, mid-Wales is linked to the midlands and south Wales is linked to the M4 corridor. I think that we should challenge the judgment of investing in links between north and south Wales, and not just on the basis of economic benefit, but on the cost-benefit analysis. During my years in the National Assembly, I always thought that there was an element of wanting to develop Wales as a geographical region, rather than just looking at the cost, as with the A470 and the A483. I think that is a real objective, because developing Wales as a coherent unit is important in itself.

Mid-Wales warrants much better treatment that it receives from the Welsh Government, and this is a long-term issue. Wales has an area in the middle between north Wales and south Wales, and it has always been a battle to develop the same awareness of mid-Wales as of the other two areas. We must focus on mid-Wales so that it brings the other two areas closer together. I have always thought there was a case for more investment in mid-Wales to create a unified Wales rather than just for the benefit of individual projects.

Mid-Wales is not just an area to put wind farms—they do not bring much economic benefit to the local economy—and which can then be forgotten in terms of industrial development. Given some political views—certainly not mine—in Wales, that is a danger, and we should challenge it.

Elections (National Assembly for Wales)

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue in Westminster Hall. This debate was intended to occur two weeks ago, but as that clashed with the Welsh Grand Committee, the usual channels and I agreed to postpone it for the convenience of Members who represent Welsh constituencies, and one who does not—the Secretary of State for Wales. There has been a bit of fuss about another Welsh Grand Committee that was planned for yesterday, but for which only half a week’s notice was given. The whole thing amounts to something of a fiasco, in terms of debating the exceedingly important issue of the electoral arrangements for our Assembly in Wales. The subject has been debated at length and with great expertise and skill by those in the House of Lords, and in my view, this debate should have been held not in Westminster Hall but on the Floor of the House.

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

Did the Secretary of State give any reason why only half a week’s notice was given of such an important Committee?

[Paul Murphy]

Not to me, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who will wind up for the Opposition, will touch on that. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here. I have a great deal of time and respect for the Minister, but on this occasion the Secretary of State should be present. Secretaries of State sometimes think that they are too grand to come to debates in this Chamber, but when I was Secretary of State I certainly took part in Adjournment debates. I think that she should be in this Chamber, but she is not, and we will hear what the Minister has to say.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is a distinguished Member of this House and a former Secretary of State for Wales. Does he agree that the fact that the Secretary of State is not here is totally disrespectful to Welsh Members? I venture to suggest that if we had been a group of community campaigners from Buckinghamshire who were opposed to High Speed 2, she would have been present, even if it was 6 o’clock in the morning. Is it not time for her to turn on her alarm clock and show Wales a bit more respect?

[Paul Murphy]

None of this is a surprise to me, because it follows the pattern of what happened when we discussed parliamentary constituencies during the progress of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. There was no adequate debate on the Floor of the House; the guillotine fell, and we did not really have the chance to discuss the issues for Wales. Furthermore, the Secretary of State refused point blank to hold a Welsh Grand Committee on the issue. But enough of that; I am sure that the Minister will be able to explain the Secretary of State’s absence in his concluding remarks.

I wish to come to the essence of the debate, which is the Government’s Green Paper concerning electoral arrangements for our National Assembly in Wales. I will not touch on some of the more peripheral issues, but will rather focus on the central matter of how boundaries are configured and how constituencies are worked out in Cardiff. The Green Paper is flawed for two reasons. First, it is almost exclusively based on partisan grounds, and follows the pattern of the gerrymandering that we saw in the case of parliamentary constituencies. Secondly, that is backed up by the fact that there are only two options in the Green Paper, which is deeply wrong.

If we want a proper debate on how Welsh Assembly Members are elected, to say simply that the status quo is one option and the other is a 30-30 match—30 directly elected Members and 30 top-up Members—is not the end of the story, and other possibilities should have been included in the paper for consideration. I may disagree with most of them, but that is not the point—the option should be there. There is a genuine argument, with which I know the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and his party—and, I suspect, the Liberal Democrats—agree, regarding the single transferable vote. I do not particularly believe in that, but it should have been an option in the Green Paper.

The option that I favour should also have been considered: retaining the 60 Assembly Members and having two Assembly Members per new parliamentary constituency. I would favour the election of those two Members by first past the post, but they could be elected under the alternative vote system.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time talking about the Secretary of State, but I am rather sad that he did not mention the full turnout of Conservative MPs from Wales. He is touching on electoral arrangements, and proposing, in essence, that we move away from the system of proportional representation. As he will know, I debated these issues with Ron Davies, then Secretary for State for Wales, during the course of the referendum campaign. Ron Davies promised the people of Wales that there would be a proportional system. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that before a change is made to any electoral arrangements, the matter should be put to the people in a referendum?

[Paul Murphy]

The answer to that is yes; I believe that to be the case for major electoral changes, and I will come on to that point, because it is an important part of today’s debate. I am not necessarily saying that we should move away from the proportional system. I would favour a first-past-the-post arrangement and, after the referendum that was held on the alternative vote, I think that the people of Wales would, too, but I would argue that the options should be in the Green Paper, so that the people of Wales have the opportunity to debate and discuss them, and eventually to decide on the method by which their Assembly will be elected.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

We have all gone through the process of the Boundary Commission inquiry into parliamentary boundaries. Does my right hon. Friend find it extraordinary that this proposal was made after all those hearings had ended, and that the Assembly boundaries were not part of that process? Would it have been better for the issue to have been put forward for consideration at that initial stage?

[Paul Murphy]

Of course it would. The reason why it was not is that the system is entirely partisan.

[Chris Ruane]

My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way. To go back one step, it is my understanding that the Prime Minister told the First Minister that no constitutional issues would be sprung on him or on the National Assembly. That involved an element of trust. There is no mandate for the changes that we are discussing in the Tory manifesto. A promise was made to the First Minister that the changes would not go ahead, yet they were sprung on him. What does that do for the trust between Britain and Wales?

[Paul Murphy]

It seriously damages it, and I will come on to that issue in a second.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the grandstanding from Opposition Members, and even some of the so-called logical arguments that he presents, are undermined by a former Secretary of State, and a former Labour Government, who went against guidance from the Electoral Commission when they changed the electoral system?

[Paul Murphy]

No, because I think those issues were different at the time. The other option that is not in the Green Paper is the question of whether top-up Members of the National Assembly should be elected on an all-Wales basis, as opposed to a regional basis. Personally, I think that would be more logical, and that there should be a list system for Members elected by proportional representation. My point, however, is that these debatable options should have been put to the people of Wales but were not, and that is why the Green Paper is flawed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) touched on the assurances that were given to the First Minister of Wales concerning electoral arrangements for the National Assembly. I understand that the Secretary of State said last week that no such assurances were given, but I want to provide the Chamber with two quotations from what was said when the National Assembly debated the issue some weeks ago. The first comes from the former Presiding Officer of the National Assembly, Lord Elis-Thomas:

“Would it surprise the First Minister to know that, when I was Presiding Officer…I received assurances from the Prime Minister…and the…Secretary of State that there would be no change in our boundaries to coincide with Westminster boundaries?”

The First Minister, Carwyn Jones, answered:

“I received an assurance on two occasions from the Prime Minister that there would be no change without the consent of the Assembly, and I am on record as saying that. I took that assurance in good faith and I expect it to be adhered to. However, the reality is that Scotland will continue to have different boundaries for Scottish Parliament and UK Parliament constituencies. If it works in Scotland, what evidence is there that it could not work in Wales? None is offered.”

The point is that there is obviously a huge difference of opinion between the First Minister and the former Presiding Officer on one hand, and the Secretary of State on the other. Whom are we to believe in this instance? The First Minister has made it absolutely clear to me and to others that such an assurance was given.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the First Minister’s recollection of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to him. It is important at this juncture to make it absolutely clear that that is not a recollection that is shared by the Prime Minister.

[Paul Murphy]

In which case someone is telling untruths. The reality is that the former Presiding Officer, Lord Elis-Thomas, confirms that he was told exactly the same thing as the First Minister. Whom are we to believe? If there are such vast differences of opinion on this matter, the Government should rethink their whole strategy on the Green Paper.

[Ian Lucas]

The intervention from the Minister is very significant, because when I put this question specifically to the Secretary of State last week, she said that she was not aware of the conversation between the Prime Minister and the First Minister. She was very careful in the wording that she used with me. When the Minister winds up the debate, I would like him to be very clear that the Prime Minister is denying that he said to the First Minister that the assurance was given. Will the Minister confirm that, because if that is the case, someone is not telling the truth?

[Paul Murphy]

Of course they are not, and the point about this whole business is that it undermines the trust between the two Governments and the two Parliaments. It cannot be the case that the First Minister did not discuss such an important issue with the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister visited Cardiff—or, indeed, with the Secretary of State. It is so fundamental to the future of the National Assembly and the way in which it is elected that it seems impossible that the issue would not have been discussed, and that assurances would not have been given. I cannot go any further, because on the one hand the Minister says that the assurance was not given, and on the other Lord Elis-Thomas and Carwyn Jones say that it was.

[Mr David Jones]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again, because clearly this is a matter on which Opposition Members would like further clarification. The position is clear so far as the Prime Minister is concerned: he agrees that the electoral arrangements for the Assembly are not within the Assembly’s devolved competence. That is a point on which the First Minister appears to agree. When they had their discussion, the Prime Minister said that the Assembly should be fully engaged in the process. He does not recall, as the First Minister seems to recall, saying that the matter was to be decided by the Assembly itself and, indeed, the notes of the discussion do not reflect the First Minister’s recollection of the conversation.

[Paul Murphy]

Whoever said what to whom, the reality is that we are now in a fine old mess over it. It seems to me that the Government should go back and rethink their whole approach, not just on the Green Paper, but on how they handle relations with the National Assembly, the Welsh Government and the First Minister.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is inconceivable that the First Minister would not recall precisely what he was told, and what he understood he was being told, on a matter of this importance. However, I am sure that the matter is of lower importance to the Prime Minister. The point is that the integrity of discussions between Government and Ministers in the Welsh Government is in question as a result of the withdrawal from an assurance that was heard, so we understand, on more than one occasion by both the First Minister and the former Presiding Officer.

[Paul Murphy]

One wonders how much the Prime Minister knows about the details of these things. Sometimes confusion arises because of that. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) is right to say that this opens up a serious chasm between the Government in Wales and the Government here in London, which is highly regrettable, because that is in no one’s interest.

The point that is so important and that came through very clearly in the debate in the National Assembly is that the Government and Parliament here have the legal right to take the decision with regard to the electoral arrangements for Wales, just as they have the legal right to abolish the Welsh Assembly, but they ain’t going to do that. They have no moral right to do those things without the consent of the Welsh people, or those who represent the Welsh people.

The point has constantly been made—those of us who were about in those days will reinforce this—that, as everyone knows, the decision to establish devolution in Wales was based on a very narrow majority. Nevertheless, it was a majority. The people of Wales took part in a highly charged referendum campaign. In that campaign, what was put to the people of Wales was the electoral arrangement that now stands. They voted on it on the basis that it was part of the package. That means, in my view, that we cannot unravel such a basic platform of devolution without either asking the people of Wales about it in a referendum, as the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) said, or getting the absolute agreement, by consensus, of all the political parties in the National Assembly. That is the moral thing that should happen. It is not necessarily the legal thing that should happen, but in moral terms, it seems absolutely the case that before anything goes ahead, it should have either the approval of the people in a referendum, or the approval of the directly elected representatives in the Welsh Assembly, once they have reached consensus, on the basis that no political party, and particularly not the Conservatives, went into the election—either the general election or the election for the National Assembly—with a mandate for this change.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I can honestly say that no one has come to me recently in my constituency clamouring for change in the electoral system or the make-up of the Welsh Assembly. Does he think it bizarre that the Secretary of State is expending energy on the Green Paper at a time when she should be concentrating on jobs and growth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

Absolutely. The Secretary of State should also be trying to ensure that she has reasonably good relations, despite the political differences, with the Government in Cardiff. It seems to me that there is almost a permanent state of civil war between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government on various issues. That has come to a head on this point about the electoral arrangements.

[Susan Elan Jones]

My right hon. Friend has been very generous with his time. Does he, like me, think it is significant that Conservative Members in the National Assembly for Wales have concerns about the matter? Take, for example, the statement of opinion signed by the Minister’s counterpart in Clwyd West, Mr Millar, and by Mr Paul Davies and Mr Russell George. It says:

“This Assembly recognises that there is absolutely no mandate to change the current electoral system in Wales and that any future change should be put to the people of Wales.”

I am sure that, like me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) will be very interested to hear the Minister tell us who he thinks speaks for the people in Ruthin market on this issue—him or Mr Millar.

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed. My hon. Friend has pre-empted me; I intended to give a similar quote from the very same Member of the Assembly. Darren Millar said to the Western Mail some time ago that the Welsh Assembly Conservative group

“has made its position very clear. We have said we want the status quo to continue. We don’t want any change. That’s our position. We think the 40:20 position we have with the existing boundaries is perfectly adequate.”

Not even the Conservatives—the Secretary of State’s friends in the Assembly in Cardiff—agree with the Green Paper, so what is she doing this for? What is the point of it? Unless she gets consensus and agreement, this will be a running sore between the two Governments and the two Parliaments.

[Jonathan Evans]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify a point? I thought that the option to which he refers is option 1 in the Green Paper.

[Paul Murphy]

Reading the Green Paper, it is clear to me that the Secretary of State’s preferred option is option 2. That is rather different, particularly bearing in mind that she has been telling everyone that she has the right to do this and the right to do that, because she is the Secretary of State for Wales. So was I, but one can have a legal right to do something, but not a moral right. There certainly is no moral right to do this from Chesham and Amersham.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

A moment ago my right hon. Friend asked the rhetorical question: what is the point of all this? I suggest that the point—I hope that this is not true—is that, cynically, the Secretary of State wishes to undermine devolution. She has eloquently pointed out the background to devolution, the struggle to achieve it and the very narrow majority for it. On my right hon. Friend’s watch, and that of previous Labour Secretaries of State, we developed the strategy of partnership, and now we see it unravelled.

[Paul Murphy]

It has unravelled for party political reasons.

[Chris Ruane]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way a third time. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) says that a reason why the Tories propose the change is to undermine devolution. I suggest a reason on top of that: it fits in with a raft of legislation. There is the equalisation of seats, for party political advantage; the bringing forward of individual electoral registration by one year, with consensus smashed, for party political advantage; and this new proposal, put forward for party political advantage. If one party acts without consensus, another party—it might be us next time, in 2015—could adopt a similar position.

[Paul Murphy]

In the past, issues as important as these constitutional questions have been the basis of consensus among political parties, whether in Westminster or in Cardiff. We had no consensus whatever on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. That legislation was entirely for party advantage, although the boundary review in Wales turned the tables on those who thought that they would get an advantage out of it. The Prime Minister wants consensus now. On the reform of the House of Lords, for example, he wants all the parties to come together and agree on something. That is different, is it not? In that case, he wants something to happen, but there is no consensus here.

I will conclude, because many other Members want to take part in the debate. The Scotland Act 2012 was passed by this Parliament. It gave extensive new powers to the Scottish Parliament, but was also based on the consent of Members of the Scottish Parliament. Why not have that in Wales? Why not base suggestions—in the Green Paper, or elsewhere by the Secretary of State—on the consent of the National Assembly for Wales and the political parties there, or, if that does not work, the consent of the people of Wales in a referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has not responded to the point about 2006. As a result of the changes, we lost very good Assembly Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who would have stayed with the Assembly were it not for the fact that changes were made to the rules specifically to damage the opposition parties. [Interruption.] I hear Labour Members talk about democracy, fairness and party advantage, but I will take no lessons from them whatsoever.

Another key point is that a Green Paper is all about consultation. It is part of a consultation process. Why is the Labour party so scared of consultation? Because it does not do it in a Welsh context.

[Paul Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the change in the Government of Wales Act 2006 with regard to Members not being able to stand as an Assembly top-up or an Assembly first-past-the-post Member was based on a Labour election pledge. There was an electoral pledge and it had a mandate.

[Guto Bebb]

But the electoral pledge was made in a Westminster election, I believe. I will not take lessons from Labour on partisan behaviour over Wales.

Welsh Affairs

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Welsh Affairs.

I am delighted to open this important debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hold it. I thank also the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and every single Welsh Member of Parliament who requested a debate on Welsh affairs today, which is the feast day of the patron saint of Wales, St David. I have always thought there was a Monmouthshire connection because he was, I believe, the Archbishop of Caerleon for a couple of weeks but then he decided that was not the place for him and headed west to the lovely city of St David’s where he eventually settled.

The House has rightly deferred to the tradition of this place to have a debate on Welsh affairs on or near St David’s day. It is of course only once every seven years that it can come on a Thursday, as it has today. The tradition goes right back to the 1940s when Members from Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom were able to take part in a general debate on Wales. That was important because Wales and its business are an integral part of the business of the House of Commons in the same way that they are an integral part of the business of the British Government. I fear that over the past couple of years there has been a marginalisation of Welsh Members of Parliament and, indeed, of Welsh business, which is regrettable. Clearly, the fact that this debate did not happen last year is an example of that. I know that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd will touch on these issues in his remarks.

The fact that the West Lothian question is being debated and looked at by a commission indicates that large numbers of MPs are clearly of the view that Welsh MPs should have a status in this Parliament that is different from the status of MPs from the rest of the UK. In addition, there is the depressing and unforgiveable reduction by a quarter in the number of MPs here in the House of Commons representing the 3.5 million people of Wales. That change was never debated properly and has now gone through, almost, but a quarter of our seats will disappear by the next election.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

There was much force in the right hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks but would not his last point have a little more force if there were rather more of his Labour colleagues here for this debate? We are complaining about a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs but although he and those around him are here for this debate, others are not.

[Paul Murphy]

That is an interesting point, but it is also interesting that the House of Commons has, in effect, had no business to discuss for the past couple of weeks—[Hon. Members: “Months!”] Indeed. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, the hon. Gentleman knows that what he says is not the reality behind the problem, which means that a quarter of us will lose our seats in Wales because they will disappear. It is a false, fallacious and appalling policy that has led us down that line because ultimately the business of the Union is about the representation of the UK’s four constituent parts within the UK Parliament and Government. There will be a very small number, in real terms, of 40 Welsh Members, as opposed to 500-odd from England, and the influence and say that Welsh people can have will be reduced by 25%. That is to the shame of the Government, and I am sorry that I have to say that.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and he is absolutely right. He referred to the West Lothian question. Does he agree that there is something peculiar and disproportionate about Conservative Members’ support for changing the relative engagement of Members of Parliament because of devolution in Wales, Scotland and, possibly, Northern Ireland? They seem to ignore completely devolution to London, which, in some respects—economic and in relation to the police, for instance—

[Alun Michael]

Indeed. In many respects, therefore, the impact of devolution to London has a greater impact on the United Kingdom than devolution to Wales and Scotland, yet that is ignored.

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed. That is the problem. We have this asymmetrical system of devolution in the United Kingdom—a different sort of Assembly in Belfast, a completely different Parliament in Edinburgh, a now enhanced Assembly in Wales and, of course, London—and as soon as we start tinkering with that sensitive constitutional balance, the Union itself is at stake.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman’s interesting argument not have more force were Welsh and Scottish MPs not interfering in the health and education policies that English Members overwhelmingly want to enact in England?

[Paul Murphy]

I do not agree. In a few seconds, I will address, in particular, the issue of the Health and Social Care Bill as it goes through the legislative process. I do not think that there has been a positive approach to dealing with these issues from the Government and Conservative Back Benchers. I am not saying that there is a conspiracy; I just do not think that there is an understanding of how the constitution works. We are the United Kingdom. I will come later to the question of what will happen in Scotland and whether the United Kingdom will break up. Of course, some people genuinely have a separatist agenda, and that is the democratic right of those parties. I merely say to those of us who are unionists—with a small u—that what has occurred in this place over the past two years seriously weakens the Union.

[Chris Ruane]

On Government Members’ lack of understanding of the devolution settlement, may I give my right hon. Friend two specific examples from the Government Front-Bench team here today? When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) about the Welsh economy, he said that macro-economics had nothing to do with the UK Government. When I asked him yesterday about attracting Irish tourists to Wales, he said that it had nothing to do with the UK Government. VisitBritain is about bringing foreign tourists to the UK. There is a complete lack of understanding from the Government Front-Bench team.

[Paul Murphy]

I think that devolution actually strengthens the Union if it is dealt with properly, because it acknowledges the richness and diversity of the different nations and countries within the United Kingdom. When we cease to acknowledge that, we are in danger of heading down a separatist path. In Welsh terms, macro-economic policy, which my hon. Friend referred to, public services, economic policy and employment are all matters for the UK Government—often shared with the devolved Administrations as well.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to understand how problems appear across the UK, not just how they appear in England and English constituencies? For example, in the constituency of the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), there are four claimants of jobseeker’s allowance looking for each job, whereas in the Rhondda, for instance, there are 49 chasing each vacancy. Understanding the difficulties and the impact of legislation across the UK is critical in hearing the Welsh voices here today, and perhaps the lack of Welsh voices on the Government Front Bench is part of the reason for this problem.

[Paul Murphy]

Whatever the reason, there is no question but that there is a lack of understanding of these things. The working partnership between a British Government in London and a Welsh Government in Cardiff is vital for the well-being of the people who are represented by those Members who represent Welsh constituencies.

The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) asked why Welsh Members should deal with matters that affect England only, but it is difficult to work our what “England only” means. Considerable aspects of the highly controversial Health and Social Care Bill will directly affect my constituents and those of other Welsh Members of Parliament.

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

As I represent a border area, I know that, when it comes to health care, the border is not there, because 30% of my constituents go to Chester County hospital because it is the nearest. Equally, that hospital receives money from the Welsh Assembly to support its services, which is good for both Welsh and English patients.

[Paul Murphy]

Of course, if there is a fundamental shake-up of the English NHS and how it is configured, with foundation hospitals being developed right across England, that will all have an impact on cross-border services and will affect both English and Welsh patients and primary and secondary health care. Thousands upon thousands of Welsh people rely on English health services, and thousands of English people rely on Welsh primary services in mid-Wales and other parts of the border area.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point, because clearly many Welsh patients rely heavily on medical services provided in England. Equally, many English patients rely on medical services provided in Wales, yet they are not represented in the Welsh Assembly. Does he regard that as a democratic deficit?

[Paul Murphy]

I do not because, as I said earlier and as the Minister will remember, the purpose is to set protocols between the Welsh and United Kingdom Governments. Indeed, the Welsh Affairs Committee inquired into cross-border health issues not long ago. I merely say to the House that when legislation goes through Westminster, even if it ostensibly relates only to England, there are implications for Wales. There are other examples. A number of the health bodies that are to be abolished affect England and Wales; one relates to alcohol and another to health care of a different sort. There is also the training of medical staff, which obviously cannot be done solely in Wales. That has to be done in England as well.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), when I tackled him on the cross-border issue, having heard whispers from the Secretary of State for Health, said that arrangements would be made to allow people on one side of the border to register on the other? He did not seem to be aware that people in my constituency currently travel to Liverpool and Manchester, for example, quite satisfactorily to receive specialist health care and that that is threatened by the privatisation that that lot are bringing in.

[Paul Murphy]

That is the sort of benign ignorance to which I referred earlier. I am not saying that the Ministers in the Wales Office are in that category, because they understand these issue. That is their job, as it was my job when I was a Minister. The issue is that other Government Ministers often have to be told about the sensitivities and complications that exist between Welsh and English issues. That is why it is not simply the case that the West Lothian question is the obvious thing we need to deal with. Not one Parliament in the world has separate classes of members who vote in the way the commission could suggest.

[Mark Tami]

If my right hon. Friend took that to its logical conclusion for matters that affect Londoners, such as those he has already mentioned, and others such as Crossrail or some of the private Bills we have been looking at, it could be argued that whole sections of the House would not be affected and therefore should not be allowed to vote.

[Paul Murphy]

Of course. That is a truly important point, and it goes right to the heart of the debate that we are now having about the Union.

Dozens upon dozens of people have contacted me in my Welsh constituency about the national health service changes in England, not simply because of the points that I have just made about them affecting Welsh people, but because it is pretty clear that Welsh people do not like the so-called reforms to the health service in England. Only today, we have seen published in Wales an opinion poll indicating that almost 80% of Welsh people would prefer the Welsh health system’s structure to what is proposed in England, and that is hugely important. Although people may live under a devolved Administration, they too understand the difference.

On that matter, I want to bring to the House’s attention one final point: if the Bill goes through, it will have direct implications for the amount of money that Wales receives through the Barnett formula. A study published only a couple of weeks ago in Public Finance in relation to Scotland and Wales quite rightly stated that, if less money is spent on the health service in England because of money coming in from the private sector, under the so-called Barnett consequentials less money will go to Wales. So for all those reasons, it is important for us to understand that we cannot easily disentangle Welsh and English business in this place.

My final point, as I know that other Members want to speak, is on the Union and the forthcoming debate about Scotland, the referendum and whether that country becomes independent. I do not have the slightest doubt about the view of most people in Wales, which has been verified, again, by today’s poll: 7% want independence, and 12% would favour independence if Scotland seceded. That is still a very small percentage, and infinitesimal when compared with the numbers in Scotland itself, but what happens in the debate about Scotland still has huge relevance to us.

Of course I accept entirely that it is for the Scottish people to decide whether they want to become independent, because that is their entire prerogative, but the debate has to be for us in Wales as well—for those in England, too, but today we are discussing Welsh matters—because the implications of that debate and whether we want to keep the Union intact are as important to us as Welsh Members as they are to Scottish Members.

That is why the Secretary of State for Wales, her junior Minister and my Front Benchers ought to engage in that debate in the way that Scotland Ministers and shadow Scotland Ministers have. The implications are enormous. I do not think for one second that the people of Scotland will vote for independence, but the debate is on, and the problem is the point that I made at the beginning of my remarks, because some Members are pursuing the little Englander approach.

I exempt Welsh Members from that accusation, but many English Members, including some in my party, simply do not understand the threats that could amount to the break-up of the Union, not only because of what might happen in Scotland, but because of what has happened by marginalising Welsh Members and Welsh business in the House of Commons. I therefore urge all Members to take part in that debate, but I urge in particular my own colleagues in Wales and politicians in Wales generally to engage in what is a hugely important issue. Whatever their views or whether they agree with separation or not, it is a matter for all of us, not simply for those who represent Scottish constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

That is one interpretation of the matter. Others might include disinterest or being dead against any fiscal powers coming to Wales. Who knows? Without anything on paper, we do not know the thinking of the Labour party in Wales. I find that very disappointing.

[Paul Murphy]

The right hon. Gentleman referred to my remarks about independence, and he was right. However, I have no objection to tax-raising powers in Wales. My objection would be to the Government taking away the block grant and plugging the gap with taxes from the people of Wales, when the nature of our economy is such that we do not have the necessary resource base. That is the issue. Even parish councils in England and community councils in Wales have tax-raising powers, but such powers must not be introduced at the expense of spending cuts.

[Mr Llwyd]

I take what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I do not agree.

Nobody can deny that the Holtham report was a very good piece of work, and I think that what needs to be done first is the reform of the Barnett formula. Surely, that is the first thing to do; then we can look further. Without taking up too much time, I hope to develop a few thoughts about the fiscal powers that could reasonably be called for at this stage of the devolutionary process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I say that you, as a Welshman, have presided over 13 speeches from Welsh Members of Parliament, together with contributions from other Members of Parliament who made interventions? We are grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for reminding the House of the death of that great Welshman Lord Hooson, and I am sure that every Member of the House sends their condolences to his family and friends.

We heard contributions from Members from all parts of Wales—that is a very important aspect of this debate—covering issues ranging from broadcasting to taxation, and mindfulness in Bangor to sport, benefits, borrowing, tourism, energy and transport. I urge the Secretary of State to follow up her point about the parliamentary calendar, and I urge the Leader of the House, who is sitting next to her, to consider the point that the St David’s day debate could well be scheduled by the Government rather than by the Backbench Business Committee. That is because it is so very important for Welsh Members to take part in this debate, which today, has been a highly successfully one.

The Secretary of State touched on the issue of the Welsh Government dealing with the economic situation. I simply say to the House that the Welsh Government have announced, among other things, a number of measures to support the Welsh economy, including £55 million to support business growth, £90 million for infrastructure projects and £75 million for job growth.

Finally, those of us who did not have the opportunity last night to taste the Welsh white wine in No. 10 Downing street—

[Chris Ruane]

Sour grapes!

[Paul Murphy]

They will get the opportunity not to drink sour wine but to raise a glass of good white or red wine, before midnight, in honour of our patron saint, St David, Dewi Sant.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of Welsh Affairs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As a good Welshman myself, I wish the House a happy St David’s day.

Commission on Devolution in Wales

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is always interesting and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I am not a great fan of Henry VIII, for obvious reasons. I agreed with some parts of the hon. Gentleman’s speech and disagreed with others. The thrust of his argument, I think, was that he was not keen on the Silk commission and its activities. I remind him that it was the Secretary of State for Wales who took the responsibility to initiate the commission, as she told us today. Government Members really have to get their act together on what they do and do not want.

I welcome the commission and I certainly welcome its members. I have known Paul Silk for at least a quarter of a century. I know all the other members in one capacity or another. I think that they are excellent people who will doubtless do a very good job. It would have been better, however, if the House of Commons had debated this issue before the commission’s terms of reference had been agreed, so that Members, including me, had the opportunity to contribute the ideas that are put before the House this afternoon.

I warn this House, my colleagues in the National Assembly and, I suppose, the members of the Silk commission that I, like the hon. Member for Monmouth, have some misgivings, warnings and suspicions about what lies behind this initiative. As with the Bible, people have different interpretations. Wars have been fought on interpretations of the Bible, but in this case people have different ideas as to what the Silk commission should or should not do, or as to why it should do it in the first place.

The first point to make is that the Secretary of State mentioned “consensus” at least six times. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referred to the fact that there has been no consensus on constitutional issues in this House of Commons since the coalition Government took over. So I find it strange that we are now going to have consensus on this commission, given that we did not have consensus on the most important constitutional development that Wales has seen for generations: the 25% reduction in the number of our Members of Parliament. That is what I am concerned about. How can we accept that the Secretary of State or the Government are serious about consensus given not only that they did not give us time to debate that matter in the Welsh Grand Committee, as she knows we should have done, but when various debates were held in the other place, any sort of so-called consensus fell to bits and the decision was made anyway? Why should we, at this stage, believe that there is consensus on the Silk commission?

[Alun Cairns]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point about consensus and it is a strong message that needs to go to the Silk commission, but is not the original root of all these inconsistencies that we now face the lack of consensus in 1997, when Labour let the genie out of the bottle and we started on the devolution road? I am mixing my metaphors, but I hope that I have made the point.

[Paul Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman knows that historically I was opposed to devolution—I changed my mind as the years went by—but we had to accept what the people of Wales decided. In 1997, they decided on devolution, albeit by a small majority—we must remember that the Conservative party did not get a majority of Members of Parliament, but we still have a Conservative-led Government—and in the referendum held earlier this year the overwhelming view of people in Wales was that there should be extra powers. It was the people who decided what they wanted in the end, and I agreed with them this time.

I repeat that we do not want to hear about consensus, given that that was abandoned by this Government when they introduced the Bill to reduce the number of our Members of Parliament. For the first time since 1832 we will have fewer than 40 Members of Parliament representing Wales in this House. I am not arguing about the nature of equal constituencies—that is for another debate—but I am saying that the reduction from 40 to 30 in the number of Welsh MPs reduces the influence of Wales within the United Kingdom. I will address that in a few moments’ time.

Part I of the commission’s remit is to deal with money: the financial responsibilities and the remit of the Welsh Assembly. We are told that this is all about accountability, but the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) just referred to the devolution settlement of 1997. Such a settlement also took place in Scotland and later in Northern Ireland, where I played a part. In all those settlements that issue of financial accountability was raised, and it was argued by some, “If a parish or community council can raise revenue, why cannot a Government in Edinburgh, Belfast or Cardiff do so?”

When I chaired the talks in Northern Ireland on whether there should be income tax powers in Northern Ireland, the meeting lasted less than an hour. People in Scotland decided that they would have the possibility of tax-varying powers, but those have never been used. We in Wales rejected this from the beginning, and there was a reason for that: the resource base of Wales is much lower than that of Scotland—the resource base of Northern Ireland is even lower than that of Wales—and therefore the amount of money that could be raised by income tax in Wales or Northern Ireland, and, to a certain extent, in Scotland, is infinitesimally smaller than the amount that could be raised in England. This proposal was therefore abandoned.

The idea of how we finance our devolved Administrations, therefore, came down to the idea of the block grant. That system is not unique. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) referred to asymmetrical devolution, and that is what occurs in Spain, except that there they have devolution everywhere. They get their money through a system of distribution of block grants and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, they are able to ensure that there is proper distribution of money so that poorer areas are helped by richer areas such as Catalonia.

[Hywel Williams]

There is of course the exception in Spain of the Basque country. I am not arguing for us to adopt that model, under which the Basque country is taxed and money is sent down to Madrid, rather than the other way around.

[Paul Murphy]

Yes; I am talking in general terms and that may well be an exception. A block grant, based on need, going to various parts of the devolved administration is the system that was decided on. That is why we have to be very careful; we tinker with this at our peril.

An issue on which the Secretary of State and I had an exchange back in May was about whether, were there ever to be income tax-raising or varying powers in Wales, we should have a referendum to approve that. She stated in her answer to me:

“He is quite right that giving tax-raising powers would involve another referendum”.—[Official Report, 11 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1148.]

It would not be constitutionally right or proper for there to be tax-raising or tax-varying powers in Wales, so far as income tax is concerned, without the people’s saying so.

[Roger Williams]

I do not think it has ever been suggested that the block grant should be replaced entirely by tax-raising powers. Most systems rely on a hybrid system, as with local government systems, in which there is a block grant as well as tax-raising powers.

[Paul Murphy]

I think that if the National Assembly for Wales ever had any tax-raising powers, the system would involve such hybridity. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a concern, which I suspect is shared by people in Northern Ireland, although the comparison between Northern Ireland and Wales can go only so far because there is a land border between Northern Ireland and another sovereign state on the island of Ireland and, obviously, we have no such border. It is suggested that if a corporation tax were introduced in Northern Ireland, although some interesting benefits could result from it, the block grant would be reduced correspondingly. If that is what is happening in Northern Ireland I would say to the Silk commissioners to beware, because the same could happen in Wales. We might be told, “You can have this tax or that tax, but we’ll cut your block grant,” and that will address the accountability gap that has been referred to. That would be dangerous because it would mean that what we are entitled to through the United Kingdom taxation system would be reduced by even more than is the case at the moment.

In recent months, other Members of Parliament have said in the House of Commons, including, doubtless, in this debate, “Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do much better than we do in the English regions. Look at the Barnett system that they have had for all these years. Look what they can do in Scotland—they can change student fees and pay to have their old people in homes and all the rest of it.” But those people forget that those countries might not do other things in the way that England does. That is what devolution is all about.

The thrust of that argument is that we in Wales are somehow or other getting more money than any other part of the United Kingdom. That is the case for some parts of the UK, but an interesting fact was referred to by the Holtham commission and in the House of Commons note in relation to the Oxford Economics report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) mentioned. If we say how much money goes to Wales from central Government and how much money is raised in Wales, of course there will be a deficit. In Wales, the deficit between the money raised and the money going in is £14.6 billion. Some might say that that is a great deal of money, but in the south-west, across the Bristol channel from us, the deficit is £15.6 billion. In the west midlands, across the border from Powys, it is £16 billion, whereas in Yorkshire and Humberside it is £16.9 billion and in the north-west of England it is £23.9 billion. Let no one in this House, or anywhere else, tell us that somehow or other we are getting some sort of better deal in Wales than the English regions. It simply is not true.

There are two other issues on finance including, first, the Barnett formula, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath touched. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is impossible for the Silk commission to consider the Holtham commission and, indeed, what happens to Barnett as part of its remit. I am not suggesting that it should hold up discussions between the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government, but to say that a commission that is dealing with the Assembly’s financial responsibilities cannot look at how the block grant is dealt with is daft.

[Roger Williams]

I agree, but it has been suggested that such an approach would not be welcomed by the Welsh Assembly Government.

[Paul Murphy]

That is for the two Governments to discuss. In the House of Commons, we are debating what it is sensible for the Silk commission to consider. I said that I did not want that to hold up any discussions that are under way, because there are implications for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but it is crazy that that cannot be discussed while all the other issues affecting money are being discussed.

I cannot understand from the response of the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Monmouth the difference between current and future borrowing. Either one agrees with the concept of the Welsh Government being able to borrow, or one does not. The Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Government will be able to borrow, and local government can borrow, so why on earth can the Welsh Government not borrow? It is quite incongruous that that is the case, and I am glad at least that they can discuss borrowing, even if they cannot discuss borrowing at the moment.

Part II of the terms of reference is about powers and functions, and I agree that there is a case for looking at incongruous and difficult cross-border issues, which need to be tidied up. Most Members of the House of Commons would be wary of transferring policing and justice to the Welsh Assembly. We have a different system from Scotland, and we are so bound up with the English judicial and legal system that I would not agree with such a transfer. Another issue that will not be discussed at all by the commission—this is why it would have been useful for the House of Commons to discuss its terms of reference before we had the debate—is the way in which the Assembly is voted in. If there is going to be a reduction in the number of constituencies, presumably to 30, with a relationship between Parliament and the National Assembly, which is voted on, it is unusual that that issue should not be debated or discussed by the Silk commission, particularly as any decision on how we elect the Welsh Assembly should be based on a proper mandate at a general election. I hope that the Secretary of State and her Government will not even contemplate discussing those matters until after the next election.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I am interested in my right hon. Friend’s point about constituencies and coterminosity. Wherever possible, Assembly constituencies should align closely with boroughs and parliamentary constituencies, because that leads to better government, better democracy and better services.

[Paul Murphy]

But the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill had nothing to do with better democracy and everything to do with partisanship. The Government were so stubborn in the other place in refusing 10% flexibility that taking local government boundaries into account is hardly possible because of the rigidity that has been introduced in the system. If there had been consensus, that might have been considered, but there was no such consensus.

Finally, we have to be careful that the proposals are not based on a hidden agenda from the Government—what I call the Trojan horse. The hon. Member for Monmouth referred to the West Lothian question, and the Silk commission’s hiving off financial responsibility to the Welsh Assembly, and perhaps—we do not know for sure —taking away the block grant is part of the agenda of the new Conservative party. It used to be the Conservative and Unionist party, but it has long since ceased to be Unionist.

The West Lothian question means that the Government want to have two classes of Members of Parliament, not British-United Kingdom Members of Parliament who speak on everything because we have been elected by our electors to talk about the United Kingdom—every part of it: Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. I referred to the complaints time and again that we are getting too much money in Wales and Scotland. Perhaps the most obvious thing is that out of 117 Members of Parliament representing constituencies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, only nine come from the Conservative party. It will probably be wiped out at the next general election in Scotland and who knows where else. The combination of all those things, to me, means that the Conservative party has now become a party of little England. I am sure the hon. Member for Monmouth, who represents a Welsh constituency, would agree.

[David T. C. Davies]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern, then, about colleagues in his own party who refuse to appear before the Welsh Affairs Committee to discuss devolved issues? Does he not think that that smacks of a little Wales mentality?

[Paul Murphy]

No, I do not. I accept, though, that there are people in my own party who may agree with some of the things that I think the Conservative party is guilty of—that is, not being awfully worried if Scotland and Wales left the Union. I have been thinking that for over a year now.

The New Statesman published a very good editorial last week, which finished with this:

“For the Tory right, an independent England—economically liberal, fiscally conservative, Eurosceptic, Atlanticist—is an attractive prospect. The United Kingdom, one of the most successful multiracial, multi-faith, multinational states the world has ever known, remains a cause worth fighting for. Yet, over the past weeks, fixated by the EU, the Conservative and Unionist Party seemed less aware of this than ever.”

The Trojan horse is not Welsh nationalism, but the English nationalism of the Conservative and former Unionist party.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution and I know that his words will be passed on to the Silk commission. I assure him that I remain a firm Unionist, not the sort of Tory that he describes.

On a point of information for him on the borrowing powers, the Welsh Government have the ability to borrow under the powers that they inherited from the Welsh Development Agency. The bilateral talks on those borrowing powers are about how that borrowing could be used more effectively. What the Silk commission has been entrusted with is examining new borrowing powers in the context of the package of tax and borrowing powers. I hope that that clarifies the position on borrowing, which I know has been the subject of some speculation.

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed; I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for telling the House that. In a sense, it confirms my view that there is confusion about what is happening with regard to Barnett and to borrowing. There appear to be simultaneous discussions on borrowing and on what happens to Barnett on the one hand, and the Silk Commission on the other, whose job it is to look at financial responsibility as well. I am saying, “Don’t stop the talks.” It is obvious that Governments have to talk to each other, particularly as we live in difficult times, but I am also saying—she has clarified the position with regard to borrowing—that it is important for that to be part of the Silk commission’s remit.

Although I welcome the Silk commission, I warn the people of Wales that the position is not as simple as it might seem on the surface. I believe that the Secretary of State is generally in favour of the Union, but—judging by the actions that have been taken in the House of Commons over the past year or so—I do not believe that that is true of much of the rest of her party. Those of us who are genuinely in favour of the Union want the Silk commission to be about helping the people of Wales ultimately to have a better deal from the United Kingdom.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

It is always a privilege and a challenge to follow the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy). He put forward some considered and powerful arguments that I am sure the commission will read and take into account when they set out their programme for the work that they have to undertake.

As we look forward to Armistice day and remember the men and women who have made a sacrifice for this nation, we also remember the Welsh men and women who are currently serving in the British Army. Just today I had an e-mail from Brigadier Russ Wardle, who recently finished his tour of duty as brigadier of 160 (Wales) Brigade in Brecon. He told me that 40 servicemen are still in Baghdad performing important roles, training the Iraqi army and police in the duties they will take up shortly. I will meet the new brigadier, Brigadier Napier, shortly. I am so pleased the 160 (Wales) Brigade will stay in Wales, contrary to speculation just before the Welsh Assembly election.

I thank the Secretary of State for securing this important debate, which has already proved its worth. It is a great day for Wales. It is fantastic that there is cross-party consensus on the commission’s terms of reference to take a considered view on the funding and future of the Welsh Assembly. Liberal Democrats have consistently supported a commission to look at the funding arrangements between Westminster and Cardiff, and it is to the credit of the coalition Government that the Silk commission will go ahead after 13 years of Labour inaction on this crucial issue. Notably, the three promises on Wales made in the coalition agreement—the housing LCO, the further powers referendum and the commission—have now been met, and I commend the right hon. Lady for that. With good Conservative support, Liberal Democrat policies are helping the people of Wales.

[Paul Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman refers, rather provocatively for him, to Labour inaction and the fact that great events have taken place, but does he accept that it was a Labour Government who brought in devolution in the first place?

[Roger Williams]

I absolutely accept that and am sure that he would accept that Labour had the full support of the Liberal Democrats, including those in Wales. Indeed, my predecessor, Richard Livsey—sadly, deceased—played an important part in that and, I am sure, would have liked to play a part in the Silk commission, too.

That is not to say that the Secretary of State’s work is over; many other things need to be done for Wales, including nurturing and supporting the devolution settlement. I look forward to working closely with her in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I am long-standing supporter of devolution. I believe that it is fundamentally correct for decision making to be as close to the people as is practicable. I consider myself to be a proud Welshman, and British, and I am also an internationalist and a European. I see no contradiction between those various identities.

In practical terms, I strongly supported the work conducted by Gerry Holtham, whose report is seminal. In particular, I strongly endorse his recommendation of the introduction of a Barnett formula, and I am pleased that that was in the Labour party’s manifesto at the last election. It would have been appropriate and sensible for it to be part of the wider consideration of fiscal issues. Nevertheless, that does not alter the fact that it is an important statement, and I look forward to its being acted on.

I welcome the establishment of the Silk commission. Like other hon. Members, I have enormous respect for Paul Silk, who has worked in the Assembly as well as in this institution. He is a long-standing occupant of the Welsh Room here in Westminster, and therefore, in some ways, follows in the footsteps of David Lloyd George. I also welcome the appointment of Sue Essex, whom I know personally and who has a profound understanding of finance and devolution. However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and others, I have reservations about what might be the motivation behind some aspects of the establishment of this commission.

I think that the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), has been very unfair on the Secretary of State for Wales.

[Paul Murphy]

Unfair?

[Mr David]

Yes, very unfair indeed. He asked how a Member from the south-east of England can have a proper understanding of the situation in Wales—but of course, as we all know, Chesham and Amersham is not in the south-east of England; it is in Buckinghamshire, which is a lot closer to Wales. However, I doubt whether that fundamentally alters the lack of understanding, let alone empathy, for the people of Wales on the part of our current Secretary of State. That is clearly shown in the way that the boundary changes that we are soon to see enacted were pushed through the House of Commons against the interests of democracy and without proper discussion in this House. Unfortunately, therefore, when the word “consensus” is used regarding constitutional matters, a question mark has to be put over whether that involves a genuine statement of intent.

I am concerned that the terms of reference are written in such a way that the work of the commission will be conducted within the parameters of the United Kingdom’s fiscal objectives. We all know what those central Government objectives are—to make cuts, cuts, cuts, and nothing but austerity, austerity, austerity. It is important to realise that when we are talking about fiscal matters regarding Wales, we are talking about not increased resources but fewer resources. The question is how that reduction in resources will be introduced.

We all know that Wales is very dependent upon the block grant, which has been cut by 1.3% since the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition came to power. The big danger is that there will be bigger cuts before too long, which is why the context of the commission is very important.

Another of the commission’s terms of reference is worth noting—the need to ensure consistency of fiscal powers within the UK. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) made the point that devolution, by definition, is asymmetrical, so why does consistency have to be a bedrock principle of the commission? We ought to recognise that whatever is proposed for Wales will be different from what happens in other parts of the UK, and so it should be.

My third and final reservation about the commission is the fact that Wales has historically been, and currently is, very dependent upon public expenditure. We all know that the Barnett formula and the block grant are important, but let us also recognise that there are other elements of public expenditure in Wales, which are often not recognised but are nevertheless crucial to its well-being.

One of the strengths of the United Kingdom is that, contrary to the nationalist interpretation of British history, Wales is not a subjected nation, under the heel of England. The reality is that there have been transfers of resources from the richer parts of the United Kingdom, particularly the south-east of England, to the poorer parts, and that is how it should be. That is the strength of the UK, and I would not like to see any measures adopted that placed a question mark over the integrity of the UK. Anything that did that would be not just a retrograde step for the concept of the United Kingdom, but potentially damaging to the people of Wales.

I mentioned Gerry Holtham, and we must recognise the importance of his in-depth analysis of the possibilities and options for the development of fiscal powers for Wales. In his introduction to that report, he stated:

“To be sure, economic reality and the integrity of the UK impose constraints on what it is practical or advisable to devolve.”

It is extremely important to bear that in mind, not least because he is an eminent economist but also because he is passionately committed to the principle of devolution. He is saying, in other words, that there is no point having devolution for devolution’s sake. We have to take a pragmatic approach of bringing power closer to the people, but we also need measures that enhance the material well-being of the people of Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman was not in the Tea Room when I was there. I hope that he accepts my apology.

On part I, it is important that we consider the issue of fiscal responsibility. Some of the areas that the First Minister has said are appropriate for change are not acceptable, because they are not significant changes. For example, I do not think that the average person who votes in an Assembly election will be motivated to vote one way or the other because of a slight change in the aggregates tax. We need to look at proper fiscal changes.

[Paul Murphy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Guto Bebb]

This will be the last intervention, because I need to finish.

[Paul Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman refers to significant changes. Does he accept that the most significant change in income would arise from income tax? Does he also accept that before that could be introduced, the people of Wales would have to decide on it in a referendum?

[Guto Bebb]

I am not sure whether the most significant change would have to be in income tax. There is an argument for changing the rates of employers’ national insurance contributions, which could be beneficial from a Welsh economic perspective. Whether the changes require a referendum depends on the range and the outcome of the Silk commission. I would not want to commit myself on that at this point in time.

The concept of fiscal responsibility is something that everybody in Wales should welcome. I find it difficult to understand how anybody in this Chamber who believes that the Welsh Assembly should have a degree of accountability to the people of Wales can be opposed to the concept of fiscal responsibility. I look forward to the findings of the Silk commission on part I. I believe that they will contribute to the debate. It is crucial that all stakeholders in Wales contribute to this debate, because otherwise we will end up with a discussion not dissimilar to what the hon. Member for Monmouth described.

Finally, part II deals with constitutional changes and what further boundaries we need to consider, beyond the changes that have already been made. It is important to state that we are talking about boundaries within policy areas, not physical boundaries. Several individuals I know who live in Oswestry are slightly concerned about the comment that we are looking to change the boundaries. Personally, I would be delighted to welcome back Croesoswallt—or Oswestry—to Wales, but I do not think that that is the intention of the Silk commission.

When we talk about boundaries, we are talking about whether there are aspects of the relationship between the responsibilities of the Assembly and those of Westminster that we need to look at again. As has been said, matters such as transport are not fully devolved. That may be a good or a bad thing, but the main arteries going in and out of north Wales and south Wales go from east to west. Therefore, if there were improvements to the A55 in Flintshire they would be wasted unless there were improvements to the M56 in Cheshire. There are clearly transport issues that need to be examined. We have also spoken about the fact that health is not fully devolved.

Finally, we need clarification on energy policy. The opportunity for economic and employment growth in Wales as a result of large-scale energy projects is something that we should all welcome. However, there is confusion over whether permission for such projects is granted by the Welsh Assembly or Westminster. Businesses looking to invest in hydro, wind power or tidal power need clarity about where the permission comes from and where the responsibility lies. That would be beneficial to the Welsh economy. I sincerely hope that that will be considered as the Silk commission moves on to part II.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister on the remit of a commission on devolution and funding for Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

The Government are committed to a Calman-like process for Wales and will be putting forward proposals. I have discussed the issue with the First Minister, and will be continuing to have discussions with relevant colleagues and of course the First Minister.

[Paul Murphy]

The Secretary of State will know that the Northern Ireland Executive can borrow money and the Scottish Government will soon be able to borrow money, but the Welsh Government cannot. With the cutback in capital spending on schools and hospitals, is it not now time for the right hon. Lady to enter into immediate negotiations with the Welsh Government and the First Minister so that the Welsh Government can also borrow money?

[Mrs Gillan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He is effectively asking why Wales is the only home nation without borrowing powers. It is fair to say that the new borrowing powers for Scottish Ministers, which are set out in the Scotland Bill, will not take effect until 2015-16, which is in line with our commitment not to change the system until stabilisation of public finances. May I make it clear that we are not ruling borrowing powers for the Welsh Government in or out at this stage.

Constitutional Reform (Wales)

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is good to take part in a debate under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Your surname is a Welsh surname of considerable importance, so I am sure that you were interested to join us for this important debate. I agreed with every single word that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), my constituency neighbour, said. The only problem is that there are plenty of members of the Government who did not and, indeed, it may be too late for some of the excellent points that he made to be effective.

One of the good aspects of what is happening this afternoon is that the Welsh Affairs Committee was the only body—the only institution—in Parliament that dealt properly with the question of constituency boundaries in Wales. Hon. Members will know that, on the Floor of the House, the issue of Welsh boundaries was never reached. There was a considerable and excellent debate in the other place, but not in the House of Commons. Similarly, we asked the Secretary of State for a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee so that all Welsh Members of Parliament could discuss the most important issue that affects our constitution, but we were refused.

When we couple that with the fact that we seem to have lost our Welsh day debate, despite my attempts and those of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) to ask the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that we did have a debate on Welsh matters, which has been the case in the House of Commons since 1944, we see that the opportunities that we could have had have been missed. Nevertheless, the fact that the hon. Member for Monmouth has initiated this debate is to be welcomed.

[Alun Michael]

My right hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful point about the St David’s day debate. That has always been regarded across parties as an important element in the year. The suggestion that it can be ignored and pushed to one side by regarding it as Back-Bench business is wrong. It is surely business that should be dealt with in Government time, as has always been the case in the past.

[Paul Murphy]

Yes. It is ironic that the Secretary of State has written to the Backbench Committee arguing that there should be a Welsh day debate; I guess the right hon. Lady will now have to argue with her Cabinet colleagues and the Leader of the House to ensure that we have a debate to discuss Welsh matters on the Floor of the House.

The hon. Member for Monmouth did not touch on one excellent point made by his Committee, which is that there was insufficient time for the changes to be debated, and that no draft legislation has come before the House on this important matter. That contrasts entirely with the way in which the Government are dealing with the reform of the House of Lords, where there is a draft Bill, a White Paper, a Joint Committee and an attempt at consensus. None of those were the case for the Bill that we are discussing today. That is to be regretted, because my experience of dealing with constitutional matters, which goes back some years, is that such reform will never last unless there is a foundation of consensus. If they are seen to be wholly partial, which I believe the present proposals are, they will not be of lasting value to our country. The Welsh Affairs Committee was very wise when dealing with the matter.

I have a great deal of time for the Minister, and I welcome him to this debate, but it would be nice now and again if his boss were to turn up. I twice held the post of Secretary of State over a five-year period, and whenever we had important debates on such subjects I thought it important that the Secretary of State for Wales should attend. It has not happened in this Parliament. The only time that the Secretary of State for Wales has dealt with the issue is in reply to the odd question or two at Question Time. There has been no debate. Indeed, she stopped the Welsh Grand Committee debating the matter, so we do not know what she has to say about the fact that 25% of Welsh Members will be losing their constituencies.

Since the Welsh Affairs Committee produced its report, we have had a referendum; that has given legislative power to the National Assembly, and a new National Assembly and Executive have been elected and appointed. The impact of that on the role of the Secretary of State is, if nothing else, hugely significant. Even at this late stage, I still make the plea that, before the summer recess, the Welsh Secretary liaises with the Leader of the House so that the Welsh Grand Committee can debate the matter.

I will not take up much more time because other Members wish to speak, but I want to emphasise one important aspect of the Union. I am a unionist—with a small “u”—and I believe that the union of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England has proved successful. In Northern Ireland, it is for the people there to decide what to do—the principle of consent. We have seen dramatic changes in the last couple of weeks in Scotland and in Wales as a result of the elections. However, I fear that unless the Conservative party in Britain listens to the Conservative party in Wales—there is a big difference —we are heading for big trouble.

The Prime Minister talks about fighting for the Union with every fibre of his being. I understand that, and I do not doubt his sincerity for a second. However, what has happened to Wales’s constitution and its relationship to the House of Commons and Parliament over the last year shows that we must be very careful in what we do. As the hon. Member for Monmouth said, the reduction in the number of Members is not simply about the same number of MPs representing the same number of constituencies and the same number of electors as with English or Scottish seats. We have a United Kingdom that, by definition, represents the nations within it, and if we reduce the number of MPs in Wales by a quarter—a disproportionate reduction from 40 to 30—their influence in the House of Commons and in Government will be seriously weakened. We have made that point to the Government time after time, but they have shut their ears.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He makes a point that he has made previously on the Floor of the House and on the last occasion when we debated the matter in Westminster Hall. How does he get over the need for equality in terms of vote? Is it not the essence of democracy that everyone’s vote, wherever in the country it is cast, should be of equal validity? Is it not the case that, if Wales were disproportionately advantaged, that principle would be broken?

[Paul Murphy]

Wales can never be disproportionately advantaged. Even now, we have only 40 of the 659 seats. Whatever England wants to do, it can do through its Members of Parliament. It can overwhelmingly outweigh the Members of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland put together. There is never a case where that cannot happen.

[David T. C. Davies]

With all due respect, the right hon. Gentleman slightly avoids the question. With the advent of the Welsh Assembly, Members of Parliament in England cannot do anything about the health service in Wales, nor about education, roads and the many other issues about which our constituents write to us.

[Paul Murphy]

We now touch on the other point that I intended to raise before concluding—the so-called West Lothian question.

There will be a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament—it will be a huge reduction, and it will weaken Wales’s voice here, even though it would not influence what happens in Parliament—and the answer to the West Lothian question will mean that Welsh Members of Parliament will be of a different type from the English MP. We will have different types of Members in the House, some MPs being able to vote on this and some on that. That is unknown in any other European country and, as far as I am aware, in the world.

A reduction in the number of Welsh MPs, a reduction in their rights, a constant grizzling and grumbling about the Barnett formula, the fact that people think that Wales does better than parts of England, the fact that we can do different things in Cardiff and Edinburgh and Belfast—student fees, for instance—which is what devolution is all about, and the way in which the House deals with Welsh business, with the Welsh day debate disappearing, all add to the case for separatism, and not for the Union.

[Mr David Jones]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He touches on an extremely important. I entirely agree that the West Lothian question is vital; in my view, it has not been properly addressed and should have been addressed prior to the establishment of devolution.

I want to deal with the question of the number of Welsh MPs. Did the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee by Professor Richard Wyn Jones? The professor said that it was “hard to imagine” how the reduction in the number of Welsh MPs could have a

“huge impact in terms of the Welsh voice in Westminster, particularly because, on the whole, Welsh MPs do not behave en masse as a single block.”

[Paul Murphy]

I believe that we do behave en masse in representing Welsh interests in the House of Commons. The fact that the Welsh Affairs Committee unanimously and across parties agreed on the matters raised by the hon. Member for Monmouth shows that there are many occasions when Welsh Members come together in the interests of Wales. I do not know the professor, but I do know that he is not a Member of Parliament, has not served in the House of Commons and does not know what can happen here. These people can have their academic discourses and theses and the rest of it, but the practicalities of politics are such that Welsh influence can be exercised here only by Welsh Members of Parliament.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is giving a powerful discourse on the importance of having a Welsh voice in Parliament. Does he agree that it is absurd for Government Members to talk about the importance of equal representation across the UK and of reducing the number of MPs, while at the same time stuffing the House of Lords with their supporters?

[Paul Murphy]

That is because the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010 was born in a partisan way. Had it been dealt with like the legislation for reform of the House of Lords or other constitutional legislation, and a consensus arrived at, we would not have the present trouble. People simply see it as a means of cutting the number of Welsh Members of Parliament. The chances are that more Labour MPs are likely to be cut than those of other parties—we do not know; it could be the other way around—but we all ought to be fighting for Welsh Members of Parliament to have their say strengthened in a United Kingdom Parliament rather than weakened.

[Alun Michael]

Does my right hon. Friend not find it ironic that the capacity of Welsh Members of Parliament to work together and speak with one voice was illustrated through the calling of a meeting—the first for many years—of the Welsh parliamentary party specifically because the Secretary of State was not listening to Welsh MPs speaking with one voice? Does he not think that there is very strong representation and strong teamwork across Welsh MPs and that the analysis quoted by the Minister is simply misplaced?

[Paul Murphy]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and that was why a meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party was called.

[Roger Williams]

rose—

[Paul Murphy]

I will give way in a moment. I just want to finish my point regarding the consensus among Welsh Members, including Welsh Conservative Members. I am beginning to feel that there is a belief among some Conservative Members of Parliament—I exclude all Welsh Conservative MPs from this criticism—that they would be better off with an English Parliament, without Welsh or Scottish Members of Parliament, and that does a great disservice to the Conservative party because both in Wales and Scotland it is still a powerful political force. We should all join together to ensure that Welsh MPs, whether they be Conservative, Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrat or Labour, can express their views in this place.

Another issue is that Welsh-speaking constituencies will find themselves with less representation in this Parliament than they would have done under the current system of the 40 MPs. Again, try to explain that to an English Member of Parliament. All of us know how important it is that Welsh-speaking Wales is represented here, not least because there are issues affecting the Welsh language that are still dealt with in Parliament.

[Roger Williams]

I agree that we should have had the opportunity to debate this matter in full—whether it be on the Floor of the House, in a St David’s day debate or a Grand Committee debate. However, I am in disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman. When Welsh MPs come together on a particular matter, it does not matter whether we number 30 or 40. But if we started off with 30 Welsh MPs, could we honestly argue to be increased to 40? It seems to me that that argument just could not be made.

[Paul Murphy]

It will be the fewest number of Members of Parliament representing Wales since 1832. I am not convinced that 30 is a sensible and reasonable representation, which is what every country must have. I am not saying that each constituency should not be equally sized in terms of numbers, but an amendment was tabled in the other place that sought to ensure that there was a variation of 10% as opposed to 5%. A 10% variation would, in many ways, have solved the problems to which the hon. Member for Monmouth rightly referred in terms of our geography, our values, and our rural seats. If we had had that flexibility, the distorted seats that we will end up with in Wales would not have happened.

In conclusion, I do not want to see the Conservative and Unionist party becoming the Conservative and Separatist party, and I am saying that as a Labour Member of Parliament. There is an onus on all of us who represent Welsh constituencies to ensure that the Government listen and that we are not heading towards an English Parliament as opposed to a United Kingdom one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

That argument has been brought out all the way through. To use the American example, however, we do not hear people in California, which has 37 million electors, saying that they deserve more senators than Wyoming, which has 544,000.

The other thing about Welsh constituencies is that they are different. The Cotswolds, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham are all flat, so they can be put together. In Wales, however, we have rivers and mountains. As somebody once said to me at a Labour party grand committee meeting, “Islwyn was not created. It was given to us by God.” I do not know whether that is true.

[Paul Murphy]

That is true of all our constituencies.

[Chris Evans]

Yes. Big mountains separate Blaenau Gwent from neighbouring constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention, but we have the Calman process and, following questioning last Wednesday, it was confirmed that such issues will be debated. The Bill will be an opportunity to address grievances that some of us have with the current settlement.

[Paul Murphy]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments with great interest. I agree with some of them, but I am doubtful about the appetite in Wales—or the UK, for that matter—for introducing any other systems of proportional representation. It is daft to argue that the overwhelming vote against AV was because people wanted STV. People want a first-past-the-post system, so would it not be a good idea to have 60 or 80 AMs elected, two per constituency, by first past the post?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I totally disagree with that, of course. When the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was a Bill before the House, I argued for the referendum to be held on STV, not AV. That was about a vote for the Westminster Parliament, and my preference for developing democracy in Wales is a plural, proportional system. I will get to that point when I conclude my speech.

During the passage of the 2011 Act, I welcomed the clauses that decoupled the Westminster and National Assembly boundaries; it was common sense to include them in the Act. My colleague the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) had a sparring session on BBC Radio Wales in the very early hours of Sunday morning on that issue. The Labour party was vehemently opposed to the decoupling; its preference was for coterminosity. From the point of view of organising local party structures, I can see the argument. They would be a total nightmare to organise locally with different boundaries for the Westminster and Welsh elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I share some of the concern about that issue. I do not think that my hon. Friend is overstating the case, because we have heard far too many noises off from Conservative MPs that lead us to fear that many of them think that breaking up the Union would be a price worth paying. I certainly do not share that view and I do not think that any Opposition Members do either.

Another area that we have touched on today and that the Committee’s report was again prescient about is the impact on the National Assembly of the changes that are being proposed. During the passage of the Bill, we were repeatedly told that breaking the link between elections in constituencies in Wales for the National Assembly and elections for Westminster effectively meant that the National Assembly would be unaffected by the Bill. However, it is only a couple of short weeks since the Bill’s passage and already we have heard the Secretary of State for Wales, in response to a question put by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr in Welsh questions last week, entertain the notion that a Calman-style commission in Wales might look beyond financial matters and indeed might look at the nature of the elections to the National Assembly and the make-up of the electoral districts for the National Assembly. That is worrying. It is looking like another broken promise from the Government if we are now going to see the National Assembly being so directly impacted by the Bill.

I ask the Minister to try to clarify today what was implied by the Secretary of State’s response to the hon. Gentleman’s question last week. If the Minister is unable to tell us exactly what that commission is going to look at, can he at least tell us whether it will look at alternatives to the current voting system? The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr slightly misrepresented me when he said that in our discussions last week I said that we had to stick pretty much with what we have got. I did not say that. What I said was that we certainly should not shift instantly if we are to consider these matters through 30 list members and 30 first-past-the-post members. The rejection of the alternative vote last week raises the question of whether we ought to look more seriously at first past the post and I think that there is an opportunity for us to put other alternatives on the table, such as having 60 members, two per constituency, in a first-past-the-post system. There might be a significant amount of agreement across the House for that as an alternative system.

[Paul Murphy]

My hon. Friend knows that I entirely agree with him on that issue. I hope, however, that he, and the House, understand that any substantial constitutional changes to what the people voted for in 1997 would require not just huge consensus but a referendum. I hope that the Minister will indicate that understanding in his response.

[Owen Smith]

That point is very well made, and I look to the Minister to clarify it. We would certainly hope to see it clarified under any possible Calman-style commission.

My final point is a reflection of some of the remarks made earlier. The contrast between the 2011 Act and the constitutional changes that it portends and the House of Lords draft Bill that we saw only this week could not be starker: pre-legislative scrutiny, the establishment of an independent commission, a Joint Committee, a draft Bill—a serious look at what will be a dramatic, radical and historic change to the governance of our country.

No less historic a change for Wales was the announcement, dealt with in eight scant days on the Floor of the House, of a quarter reduction in the number of MPs from Wales. That measure was railroaded through for what I fear were squalid, partisan and political reasons, and I am sure that the people outside this place will be concerned that the Government could apply a similarly high-handed gerrymandering approach to the potential changes to the National Assembly electoral boundaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I would be very reluctant to call into question the integrity of the Electoral Commission. It is the right body to report on electoral processes in this country.

[Paul Murphy]

The 2011 Act provided for the referendum to be held on the same day as elections for the Welsh Assembly and for local government in England. Does the Minister think that the Deputy Prime Minister now believes that that was such a good idea after all?

[Mr Jones]

I would be very loth to second-guess anything that the Deputy Prime Minister might think.

The focus of the Select Committee report was the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which is now an Act. I reiterate the point that was made throughout the Bill’s passage through Parliament: the principal thrust of the provision is to ensure fairness in our electoral system. I have heard what Opposition Members have had to say about that, but it is inherently unfair that the vote of an elector in one part of this country should carry greater weight—in some cases, much greater weight—than that of an elector in another part of the country.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made the point that he has made on previous occasions—that the so-called Welsh vote has to be protected. I very much share the view of Professor Richard Wyn Jones, a very distinguished academic whom I know, who says that this situation is something that has grown up over the years. In evidence to the Select Committee, he made the interesting point that in 1543, when Welsh Members of Parliament were first admitted to this place, the population of Wales was approximately 7% of the combined population of England and Wales and Welsh representation in terms of Members of Parliament was also approximately 7%. He said that there

“wasn’t any kind of formational deal that Wales should be over-represented”.

He added that since then there had been a “drift” in Welsh representation in this place. He went on to make the fair point that in the scheme of things, it is hard to see how a reduction from 6% to 5% of MPs could make that much difference to Welsh representation here, particularly when it is borne in mind that the overall number of Members of Parliament will be reduced from 650 to 600.

Another important point that he made, and which I put to the right hon. Member for Torfaen during his contribution, is that Welsh Members of Parliament hardly behave as a bloc. I heard what the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) had to say about the Welsh parliamentary party, but I have to say in all frankness that at that party’s most recent meeting, representation by Conservative Members was rather light, underlining the fact that Welsh Members of Parliament do not behave as some sort of single coherent body.

[Mr Jones]

The Member who made that point was the only Member of the Conservative parliamentary party at the meeting—[Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman is disappointed that more Conservative Members of Parliament did not attend, but that underlines the fact that party politics, across the political divide, prevail just as much in Wales as in the rest of the country.

[Paul Murphy]

The Minister quotes Professor Wyn Jones all the time, but he fails to remember that Speaker’s Conference after Speaker’s Conference indicated that there were special circumstances to ensure proper representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom Parliament. Why does he think, for example, that there are separate boundary commissions for Scotland and Wales? They are separate countries in separate circumstances. I think that the professor is on his own on this one.

[Mr Jones]

He is not, because I happen to agree with him, which is precisely why I quote him so extensively.

We must return to the fundamental point: it is inherently and conspicuously unfair that a vote cast in Aberdeen, for example, may have a different weight from a vote cast in Aberystwyth. The Act proposes to introduce the element of fairness. Nevertheless, to a large extent—

[Paul Murphy]

Does the Minister not accept that for nearly 150 years, his party agreed with the point that I am making? The Conservatives agreed that not just Scotland and Wales but large rural areas should have proper representation. What has happened in the past year goes completely against what the Conservative and Unionist party has said for 150 to 200 years.

[Mr Jones]

It is fair to say that the Conservative party has evolved considerably over the past 150 years, as no doubt has the Labour movement in this country. If we were set in aspic, we would never make any progress.

As I said, the Act will introduce fairness into the system. I am conscious that the Chairman of the Select Committee will wind up this debate, but I feel that I must touch on one or two points made by various right hon. and hon. Members, who I hope will forgive me if I do not mention them by name. One important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth related to individual voter registration. It is certainly vital that as many people as possible register to vote and are encouraged to do so. We feel that the move to individual registration is likely to increase the number of people on the register.

We are trialling data matching throughout this year in several areas, including Cardiff. We are comparing the electoral register with other public databases to find those who are eligible to vote but missing from the register. The aim is to tackle under-registration among specific groups.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

May I ask the Secretary of State to take great care when she deals with these issues? As she knows, there is really no appetite in Wales for tax-varying or tax-raising powers—the resource base is not there—and even if there were, we would have to have a referendum in Wales for such powers, as happened in Scotland.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because I always remember sitting and listening to him give evidence to, I believe, a House of Lords Committee looking at the Barnett formula. He said that there was no case for reviewing it because it had served well. The fact that the last Government repeatedly ruled out reforming the Barnett formula means that any reforms must be looked at carefully. He is quite right that giving tax-raising powers would involve another referendum, which is something that this Government would look at carefully, because I am not sure whether Wales has an appetite at the moment for another referendum.