Welsh Affairs

Debate between Paul Flynn and Wayne David

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

That part of the splendid report referred to by the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) is a fine example of inventing precedent to suit a case. In fact, the words inserted into the report were disputed, because they are a great example of the argument made at the beginning of a splendid book about those times called “Dragons Led by Poodles”, which asserted that only the future is certain, but the past is always changing. That is what the Committee tried to do.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend is too modest to say this, but it is worth pointing out that he was the author of that book. I disagreed with some things in it, but it did have many words of wisdom.

My central point is that those of us who believe in devolution need to recognise that there needs to be a high degree of consensus, dialogue and debate among all politicians involved in the process, both here and in Cardiff Bay. I really hope that when the Government start from scratch, they will have learned the cardinal lesson that they have to consult—genuinely and openly, and on a cross-party basis—opinion here in Westminster. I think that all our colleagues are prepared to contribute.

It is also important that the Government work with the Welsh Assembly. It is very important that we have that dialogue with Cardiff Bay, because, to be frank, it is unthinkable that a Westminster Government could decide a devolution package that is not acceptable to the body to which power is being devolved. If they had proceeded with the draft Bill, we might have been in that situation, ridiculous though it seems. I ask the Government for dialogue not only here, but with our colleagues and friends back in the Welsh Assembly.

My second point is about the European Union. In my view, there is an overwhelmingly strong case for the United Kingdom to remain a full member of the European Union, but that case is particularly strong for us in Wales. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the European Union is vital for jobs, exports and, therefore, prosperity in Wales.

Last week the Prime Minister visited the General Electric aircraft engine maintenance plant in Nantgarw, just outside my constituency. He made his case for why Britain should remain in the EU and why it benefits south Wales and General Electric. Objectively, he had a strong case to make, because General Electric is one of my constituency’s most important employers; many of the workers travel down Nantgarw hill to work there. It recognises how important it is to have a good relationship with the EU and to be an integral part of the single European market. I have no ideological axe to grind; empirically, we recognise that it is good for our economy to be firmly linked to our partners in the rest of Europe. It is as simple and straightforward as that. It is a bread and butter issue.

On Monday night, I met representatives from DS Smith Recycling Ltd, which is a British company with a strong European presence. It is expanding its operations in an innovative way throughout the European Union, and it is a major and important employer in my constituency of Caerphilly. The company is not committed to the left or to the right; it simply wants to expand its work and be a good employer. It recognises that it would be absolute lunacy for itself and the people it employs if we extricated ourselves from the European Union. The message that went out on Monday evening was, “In the interests of the company, jobs and prosperity, please make sure that the strong case is put for Britain to remain in the European Union.”

The two companies I have mentioned have innovative and well-structured training programmes, which the EU’s structural funds contribute to in large part. Wales has been allocated £2.4 billion from the EU structural funds for the 2014 to 2020 period. Indeed, Wales is a net beneficiary—more money comes in than goes out—to the tune of £838 million a year. There are strong practical reasons for making the case over the next few weeks that Britain and Wales should remain an integral part of the European Union. It makes sense for ordinary people and for the country’s prosperity, to which we are all committed.

My final point is also linked to the prosperity of Wales, namely the question of whether Heathrow should be expanded and have a third runway. As a Welsh MP, I believe that the strongest single argument in favour of the third runway at Heathrow is the positive impact it would have on the Welsh economy. That is not just my view. The First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, was clear the other day that the Welsh Government support the expansion of Heathrow because it would provide the best possible support for investment, tourism and jobs in Wales. His comments are informed by hard facts and clear analysis. It has been estimated that 85% of the new manufacturing jobs that an expanded Heathrow would generate would be created outside London and the south-east. Up to 6,000 of those manufacturing jobs would be in Wales, constituting a significant part of the 8,400 Welsh jobs accompanying a total of £6.2 billion of economic benefit.

Those facts speak for themselves. It is essential that the Government stop shilly-shallying and give the go-ahead for the expansion of Heathrow. It makes sense for the country as a whole and for Wales in particular.

Whether or not Heathrow will bring the best possible benefits to Wales depends on access. That is why it is essential that Heathrow’s expansion is accompanied by the electrification of the Paddington to south Wales railway line and the construction of a rail spur directly to Heathrow. I am aware that a consultation began this week.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Wayne David

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

I respectfully remind the Minister that the Bill was literally drafted on the back of an envelope in a couple of days. All we are asking is that the Government give us a draft amendment, subject to all the caveats that they want to put in about legal advice and so on, so that we have, in writing, the Government’s commitment. Otherwise many people will think that these are simply hollow words from the Government.

[Paul Flynn]

Does my hon. Friend think that the Government are advertising their incompetence by presenting us with some promise that, on Report, they will change the Bill, while suggesting that we all waste our time today dealing with a Bill that might be very different on Report? Why on earth do the Government not try to amend the Bill now?

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Clause 26 and schedule 3 are absolutely central to the Bill because everything follows on from them. If the Government do not get this right and do not sort out what they are going to do here, everything that follows, frankly, does not make much sense.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Wayne David

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

That is an interesting point, and I am sure there was a very good reason, but I do not think it is germane to our discussion today.

There has been extensive consultation on the Bill, and I note the consent of the Queen, as expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister at the start of the debate.

There is a third measure in the Bill that needs to be commented on. Although the Prime Minister did not refer to it in his statement to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011, it was referred to in his invitation to the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth, and the Government have recognised the need for the change. I refer to the requirement for all the descendants of George II to seek permission from the monarch to marry. In place of that, the Bill proposes a more limited requirement for the monarch to agree to the marriages of a specific number of individuals in the line of succession. That is surely a sensible proposal.

[Paul Flynn]

Does my hon. Friend really regard it as a sensible proposal? What percentage of our constituents does he think would accept an absolute prohibition from a relative on marrying the person of their choice?

[Wayne David]

We are talking about the monarch of the United Kingdom, not everybody else in the country. We have to acknowledge that we have a constitutional monarchy that is quite unique.

The origins of the current stipulation are in ancient common law, whereby the monarch has a duty and right of care relating to the upbringing of his or her close relatives. However, that was taken significantly further by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Although that statute was promoted by George III’s antagonism towards the marriage of his two brothers to women whom he saw as unacceptable, it was drafted in such a way that it went much further than was necessary to respond to his immediate concerns. Indeed, the ramifications of that law mean that today literally hundreds of individuals are obliged to go through a formal legal process involving the monarch and the Privy Council to have their marriages approved. The Bill introduces a change so that any future prohibitions are of eligibility to the line of succession rather than of the marriage.

I do not question the proposed change, but I would nevertheless welcome clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), of why royal consent is now to be required for the first six people in line to the throne. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that it is a pragmatic move, but there has to be some rationale behind it. The constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor has suggested that the figure might be five, and others have suggested larger or smaller numbers. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why six has been the number chosen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

With all due respect, I do not think that is the case. The Bill strikes a balance between modernity, which we accept we need to acknowledge, and recognising that the Church of England is central to the life of this country and its monarchy. I think a good balance has been struck and I am sure that some of the suggested unintended consequences of the Bill will be considered during our deliberations.

[Paul Flynn]

When my hon. Friend says “this country”, I presume he means England. As he knows, in the country where he and I live, the Church has been disestablished for 90 years, and happily so.

[Wayne David]

Disestablishment is, of course, a reality as both my hon. Friend and I readily acknowledge. We must recognise that the monarch has a different relationship with the Church of England and the Church in Wales, and my hon. Friend is right to point out that distinction.

I mentioned unintended consequences. Hon. Members have referred to the Duchy of Cornwall, but it seems to me that the letters patent would need to be altered if the duchy were to be automatically transferred to a female heir to the throne. Otherwise, it has been suggested that the heir apparent could be deprived of the source of revenue necessary to fulfil her responsibilities. I suspect that one or two hon. Members might welcome that, but many more would be concerned. I heard what the Deputy Prime Minister said, but I refer him to the deliberations of the Lords Constitution Committee which referred to that as a specific concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Of course we cannot guarantee it, but I have faith in the democratic process and the co-operation that exists across the House, and that these serious issues will be addressed properly. It is important that such matters are considered sensibly here as well as in the other place. I am sure that discussions will take place, and I hope that progress will be indicated before the Bill finishes its parliamentary passage.

Let me refer to an issue that is, in some ways, particular to the people of Wales: the title of Princess of Wales. Since 1301 the eldest male heir has usually been invested with the title of Prince of Wales, and as I understand it, that position is bestowed at the discretion of the monarch. Edward II did not invest his eldest son, the future Edward III, with the title, but investiture later became custom and practice. The position confers no automatic rights or responsibilities, but it follows that if there is to be no gender discrimination in the royal succession, consideration ought to be given to the title of Princess of Wales being given to a female heir apparent.

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. He will recall from history that the title of Prince of Wales was the result of a promise that the people of Wales would have a King who could not speak a word of English. He could not speak a word of any language, including a word of Welsh. Is it sensible, with the pride of Wales at heart, to continue to perpetuate that royal confidence trick?

[Wayne David]

My reading of history is that when Llywelyn was defeated by Edward I, a promise was indeed made. The King of England at that time could not, of course, speak Welsh, but he could not speak English either. He spoke Norman French. It is important to make that point when considering such issues because it is easy for some people to translate modern ideas of nationality into mediaeval situations. It is important that the historical reality of the United Kingdom is recognised, and there is a specific niche for Wales with regard to the Prince of Wales, and hopefully, in future, for the Princess of Wales. If it were appropriate to have a Princess of Wales I hope that people in Wales would welcome such a development, and I ask the Minister whether she would welcome such a move.

The Bill is small yet has significant constitutional implications. It reinforces and extends a process of modernisation for our constitutional monarchy that has been under way for some time. The people of this country are, quite rightly, very supportive of the royal family and recognise that not only is the monarchy an important part of our nation’s heritage, it is also a vital element in defining the identity of Britain in the 21st century. The changes in this Bill will help to ensure that the monarchy continues to be an essential part of Britain’s future.