Government Policies (Wales)

Debate between Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am sure that that very useful intervention will be noted by the constituents of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami).

Plaid Cymru recognises the issue of congestion on the M4 corridor around Newport and wants investment to take place. However, the current Labour Welsh Government’s preference for a new M4 to the south of Newport at a cost of £1 billion is a disproportionate solution to the amount of congestion. According to Friends of the Earth and Professor Stuart Cole, the Welsh Government consultation documentation overestimated traffic growth in 2012 and 2013. The flows were lower than the Welsh Government predicted, so they do not have a strong enough statistical base on which to justify such a huge financial and environmental cost. As the Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out, committing the vast majority of Welsh borrowing capacity and money from outside the borrowing limit in the Bill to one single project is misguided and does not serve the whole of Wales or the whole of the Welsh economy.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am listening with extreme interest to the hon. Gentleman’s points. It seems to me that Plaid Cymru is therefore actively opposing the development of the relief road around the M4, which he will have to explain to those who vote for Plaid Cymru in Gwent and Glamorgan.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I will outline two alternative proposals that would be a better use of the borrowing capacity of the Welsh Government than blindly following what the Treasury wants.

The new M4 will not be a quick and decisive solution, despite what its supporters say. It will not be completed until 2031, according to the Welsh Government. The £380 million blue route, an upgrade of the A48 corridor that includes flyovers, would represent better value for money and would avoid the environmental damage caused by building on the Gwent levels to the south of Newport. The road upgrade would be accompanied by modern traffic management methods, such as signage to direct traffic flows between the A48 and the existing M4, depending on congestion levels. The blue route is future-proofed until 2035 and, if needed, it could be developed further beyond 2035. Money saved by developing the blue route could be invested elsewhere in Wales. In our previous transport consultation, Plaid Cymru identified transport needs in north, mid, west and south Wales. Above all, Plaid Cymru’s proposal to support the blue route is more innovative and balanced than the proposal with which the Labour and Conservative parties are trying to push ahead. Wales must not get tied into the UK Government’s deal on the M4.

Ultimately, although a new route is needed to relieve the pressure on the M4, what is really needed is the development of a metro system for south-east Wales and the valleys. Early estimations have put the costs at about £1 billion. The reality is that the M4 is used as a local road in south Wales, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) well knows: 40% of journeys made on the M4 in that area are local ones of less than 15 miles. This means that—in one act—commuter journeys could be transferred to a metro system to relieve the pressure on the M4. The great thing about a metro system is of course that, after the initial outlay, a ready stream of revenue is provided through ticket sales that could be used in part to repay the initial expense and reinvest in services and upkeep. The success of the Newcastle and Tyneside metro could be repeated in south Wales if we had the necessary vision.

In conclusion, it appears that the Westminster Government are intent on binding the Welsh Government’s hands on how they utilise the borrowing capacity. The M4 relief road is a case in point. Unfortunately, the current Labour Welsh Government lack the ambition and vision to do something different, and are blindly following the UK Government’s lead. Amendment 8 would make sure that a future Plaid Cymru-led Welsh Government were not bound in the same way but could prescribe more intelligent solutions to infrastructure problems and provide a boost for the whole of the Welsh economy, rather than just the primary corridor routes in and out of Wales that concern the Westminster Government. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will therefore definitely push amendment 8 to a vote at the appropriate time.

[Paul Murphy]

It was interesting to hear the points made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), but I want to concentrate on my party’s new clause 4 on reserved powers. I very much welcome the new clause, which relates to the laying of

“a report before each House of Parliament on the further legislative steps needed to move to a model of reserved powers for the National Assembly for Wales”.

[Interruption.] Perhaps I should give up for a second while negotiations are going on behind the Speaker’s Chair.

I repeat that I support new clause 4 on reserved powers for Wales. I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition, who was in north Wales for the Labour party conference some months ago, said that the next Labour Government would introduce a

“new Government of Wales Act, with powers assumed as devolved to Wales, unless specifically reserved. Bringing Wales into line with Scotland—modernising and advancing the devolution settlement for generations to come.”

I do not see why the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for Wales, should reject such a proposal. In an earlier incarnation, I was probably more sceptical about devolution than even he is now, but the world changes. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr mentioned several times, the world has changed with regard to what might or might not happen in Scotland in a few months’ time. Let us assume, as I hope will be the case, that the voters of Scotland vote no. If that happens, we know that the Government—not the Opposition—will make far-ranging changes to Scotland’s constitution, with its Government being given extra powers as a consequence of his Government’s commitments. The Secretary of State also knows that it is quite likely that a future Labour Government would agree to such proposals. I therefore cannot understand why he is opposed to reserved powers for Wales only a matter of weeks before the possible introduction of a new Bill for Scotland that would give extra powers.

That argument is simple enough, but in a sense it goes back to our previous debate about borrowing. The Treasury Minister tried to make the point, rather heavily I thought, that borrowing could not be greater in Wales because we did not have sufficient streams of income. However, the shadow Secretary of State pointed out that Scotland and Northern Ireland were given borrowing powers for different reasons. Therefore, it is strange that, within Government, Wales is going that way and Scotland is going another way. There is no reason why that should be the case.

Severn Bridges (Tolling)

Debate between Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

As I am so old, I remember the opening of the first Severn bridge in 1966. What it most certainly was not was a bridge from England to the Forest of Dean. It was a bridge from England to Wales, and it was by pure technical and geographical chance that the engineers decided to put it at the tip of the constituency of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). Similarly, when the second Severn bridge crossing was built, I was on the Standing Committee of this House that dealt with it. It was the then Secretary of State for Wales, Peter Walker, who decided that it was the thing to do. The vast majority of the traffic on both bridges is due to people wanting to go between England and Wales, so I do not agree for one second with the hon. Member for Forest of Dean that either a third Severn crossing is necessary, or that tolls would have to be maintained after the concession ends to pay for a third crossing. The original Severn crossing is obviously not used as much as the second crossing, although I use it quite a bit, so heaven only knows how little traffic there would be on a third. There is no agreement whatever among Welsh MPs—or, I would have thought, English ones—that the bridges are anything other than a lifeline between England and Wales.

The crossings have brought great benefits to Wales, as they have to England; there is no question about that. However, there are difficulties, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) referred to in her fine speech, because of the haulage industry and tourists. I agree with the hon. Member for Forest of Dean that there are plenty of people who wish to travel to the Wye valley, the Forest of Dean, other parts of south-east Wales, and to the west country on the other side of the bridge, for tourism reasons. They are obviously caught heavily by the high tolls on the bridge, and it is about time those tolls ended.

The question is: when will that happen? In 2010 or something like that—I cannot quite remember—we were told, I think here in Westminster Hall, by the then Minister that 2017 was when the concession was likely to end. We, and the Welsh Affairs Committee, have been told that it is probable that the concession will end in 2018. However, we have been further told—this is a new one—that it could well go on until the 2020s, because the Department for Transport has found that it is apparently owed some £112 million, because it spent public money on, and in debt over, a bridge that was privately owned.

I am a bit sceptical about all that, to be perfectly honest. I think that all these sudden discoveries in the DFT are excuses to extend the franchise and maintain the tolls for as long as possible. I am hugely sceptical, and I fear I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Forest of Dean—for whom I have a great deal of time, although we do not seem to agree on this subject—on the issue of who controls the bridge; it is a bit more complicated than he suggested. Yes indeed, three of the four entrances, as it were, to the bridges are in England, but then two would be anyway—would they not?—because people on one side have to travel to the other side. I have already explained that the first Severn bridge is an aberration, in that it goes into a bit of the Forest of Dean, near Chepstow. Of course, the second Severn crossing completely goes into the terrain of the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Government’s interest in this matter therefore cannot be easily dismissed. About 25%, if not more, of all traffic that enters Wales from England goes across those bridges.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The transport spokesperson for the Tories in the Assembly, Mr Byron Davies, said this time last year:

“Devolution of the crossings—and future use of the tolls—has the real potential to help hard-pressed motorists, provide significant investment in Welsh infrastructure and encourage economic growth”.

That is the sort of argument that I made in one of my first speeches in this place in 2010. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is imperative that all parties in Wales speak with one voice, rather than the Conservatives saying one thing in Wales and saying something different here in Westminster? Of course, the same applies to the other parties.

[Paul Murphy]

I agree. That follows a pattern over the past few weeks, with a huge disagreement on taxation, but that is another issue. It would be worth while the hon. Member for Forest of Dean getting in his car one day, going on the M4 to Cardiff Bay, and chatting with the transport spokesperson for his party in Cardiff.

Severn Crossings Toll

Debate between Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Jonathan Edwards

Thursday 19th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Davies—I have just realised that one third of the Members in the Chamber are called Davies.

The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and I ought to form a Gwent national party because I agreed entirely with everything he said when opening the debate. Again, the Select Committee is to be commended on its work. Interestingly, in our earlier debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said that it is quite rare for Members from Wales to get together and agree on everything but, within minutes, we have an example of doing precisely that. We agreed on the importance of the bridge—we welcomed the building of the second Severn crossing in the early ’90s—and on what is likely to happen in 2017, when the concession runs out and the Government take over the running of the two bridges.

I remember the first bridge being opened and I also, as I said in an intervention, led jointly for the Opposition on the Severn Bridges Bill in 1991—so long ago, in fact, that half the membership of the Bill Committee is dead and the other half, except for me, is in the House of Lords. It was interesting reading the debate because, although we agreed with the building of the second Severn crossing, which was absolutely necessary, there were concerns about the nature of the deal and of the concession. I am glad that the Select Committee referred to that in its report:

“Our inquiry demonstrates the inflexibility contained in the Severn Bridges Act 1992 and the concession agreement between the Government and Severn River Crossing Plc. This has made it difficult for the Government to respond to the current economic climate and freeze the toll”—

whether the Government of which I was a member or the present Government, because both would find it difficult to change the intricate concession and deal agreed 20-odd years ago, and we must look to the future on that.

I agreed very much with my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on how new technology has not been introduced on the bridge that I will cross in five hours’ time. All of us who travel to Europe, France in particular, and to other countries have seen the most sophisticated technology—number plate recognition or using credit cards and so on—but none of that has happened on our bridges into Wales. Frankly, that is a matter of public scandal. All Governments are to blame for not putting pressure on the company to ensure that.

The other issue that was raised in 1991 was that there ought, we believed, to be local inquiries every time the tolls were to be increased substantially. That proposal was defeated in Committee; it would have been a good idea, but it did not happen.

I read with great interest the Select Committee’s questioning of the top officials of Severn River Crossing plc. I entirely understood the questions posed by the Committee, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), but I failed to understand the answers—perhaps that was my fault—and the finances surrounding the end of the concession are as murky as the Severn itself. I do not know who, if anyone, will make a great deal of money in a few years’ time, but I do know that when we look at the figures, the running costs are £15 million a year and the income is £72 million a year. The debt is almost paid off and no new technology has been put in, so one wonders a little why those figures do not quite add up.

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

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Does he agree that it was very strange that, during those deliberations, the company was unable to provide us with its likely profit at the end of the concessionary period?

Constitutional Reform (Wales)

Debate between Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Jonathan Edwards

Thursday 19th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[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.