Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon; I misheard her. There are strong rules on how people use the roads when they are on drugs or alcohol or when they are using their mobile phones, and those rules are upheld by police forces. The Government are ensuring that police forces across the UK have access to up to £450 million of new funding that will meet their policing priorities. Of course it is an operational matter for each police force to prioritise where they see fit.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

There is a private estate in my constituency, Cwm Calon, where the developer, Redrow, has behaved in a thoroughly reprehensible and disgraceful manner in relation to residents’ legitimate complaints about the state of the communal areas on their estate. I understand that the Government intend to introduce legislation to extend the rights of freehold residents on private estates, so may we have a debate to discuss the Government’s plans?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are bringing in new measures to protect tenants and homeowners in leasehold houses from some of the steps that developers are taking that really are there to rip off those who wish to own their own homes. We will be bringing forward legislation in those areas, so there will be opportunities for debate on those subjects.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Like many Members—and, I am sure, the Leader of the House—I have been appalled by the Foreign Secretary’s crass comments. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has three options: she can sack him, gag him or educate him. If she decides to educate him, can the whole House have a role in that process?

[Mr Lidington]

When I think of our relationship with France, I think about how we stood with the free French forces and the resistance fighters against Nazism; how we and France stood together against Soviet tyranny; and the very active work that we carry out with France today against international terrorism. We look for a relationship after we leave the European Union that enables us to build on those historical strengths and to continue to work as active, complementary partners on a whole range of issues.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As I said earlier, there will be a Backbench Business debate on gender equality that may give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to raise this case. If he is having any problems corresponding with Government Departments, I am always ready to try to help any Member to get a prompt reply.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister how she could justify the scrapping of the Navy’s heavy duty surface-to-surface missiles with no replacement. The Prime Minister replied that she did not recognise the situation I described, but it is the case that at the end of 2018 the GWS 60 Harpoon Block C anti-ship missile will be scrapped and there will be no replacement. This is against the very strong advice of the Navy. May we have a debate about naval defence in the Prime Minister’s post-truth era?

[Mr Lidington]

Although the Ministry of Defence has a significant budget in Whitehall terms, it still has to take difficult decisions, including decisions at times to phase out and to replace particular weapons systems or weapons platforms. I will make sure that Defence Ministers are aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but this subject may be an appropriate Backbench Business debate or he may wish to raise it on the Adjournment.

West Highland Way

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) and the other hon. Members on informative and colourful speeches. I thank them very much. I have certainly learnt a heck of a lot, and my appetite has been whetted, shall I say?

[John Nicolson]

Come with us!

[Wayne David]

I am sorely tempted and I may well take the hon. Gentleman up on that offer before too long.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman says that his appetite has been whetted. Another memory has come back to me, and I will give him a tip: do not camp in the middle of Rannoch moor. There is no running water and only 2 million midges for company. That is a tip before he plans his walk on the West Highland Way.

[Wayne David]

I shall bear that information in mind. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.

Tourism is clearly of fundamental importance to Scotland. I understand that tourism contributes some £4 billion to the Scottish economy annually. Some 200,000 people, in one way or another, are employed in the tourism industry, and many of those jobs are of benefit to Scotland’s rural areas. One of the key and growing attractions is, as we have heard, the West Highland Way.

There is no doubt at all that there is an increasing realisation that walking is a good form of exercise. Dare I say that I was, believe it or not, one and a half stones heavier than I am now? That is mainly because I have lost some weight walking. I am well known in my constituency for walking with my fiancée and her dog, Alice, and we are keen to embark upon the Wales coastal path, which goes around the whole coast of Wales. It is not as long and, perhaps, not as spectacular as the West Highland Way. Nevertheless, I am told that it is a route worth taking. After successfully doing that, I hope to go to Scotland and experience the joys of the West Highland Way as 39,500 other people do each year.

The West Highland Way is one of the longest footpaths in the whole UK at some 96 miles, which is quite a trek by any standards, and I understand that it has had an interesting history. It opened in October 1980 and is increasingly well renowned throughout the UK. If this debate has done nothing else, it has certainly reinforced how important the West Highland Way is to Scotland and what a great tourist attraction it is for the rest of us who live in the UK.

Walking is of tremendous importance because it brings home to us not only the need for physical fitness, but a great appreciation of our countryside and culture. I take note of all the marvellous attractions that one can encounter en route, and I take on board the concern expressed about midges. I dare say that people have to take preparations to guard themselves against those midges. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the precautions are certainly worth while.

It was my great pleasure to be in Scotland a few weeks ago. I visited a number of distilleries and sampled—in small quantities, of course—the elixir that is produced in them. From personal experience, I can bear testimony to what a wonderful product Scotch whisky is. There has been a modest recognition of that today in the Budget.

[Patrick Grady]

As the hon. Gentleman is being so generous to the cause of Scotch whisky, it is only fair to recognise the impression that the Welsh whisky, Penderyn, has made on the palates of members of the all-party group on Scotch whisky.

[Wayne David]

That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. I did not like to mention it myself but, of course, the Scotch Whisky Association has acknowledged the worth of that Welsh whisky and I hope that it will not be too long before it is recognised as one of the great drinks alongside the many great Scotch whiskies.

I mention Scotch whisky because it is a good way not only to extend and reinforce the British and Scottish economy, but to demonstrate what a unique place Scotland is and what tremendous opportunities there are in Scotland. I believe that the West Highland Way is an equal example, in a smaller sort of way and in a different way, of how Scotland can extend itself and show the world what a wonderful country it is. I would certainly like to reinforce my experience with Scotch whisky and visit Scotland again in the not-too-distant future, guarding against midges. Hopefully, my fiancée—I hope she will shortly be my wife—and I can enjoy the wonderful experience of the West Highland Way. I thank the Scottish National party Members very much indeed for bringing the matter to the attention of the House.

Commons Financial Privilege

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In recent years I have heard many Members of the House of Lords stress the importance of convention, but on this occasion they appear to have completely ignored it, which is why we now face this issue.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Will there be any political balance on the panel, and will it be taking evidence?

[Chris Grayling]

As I said earlier, we will give more details about the panel’s composition and terms of reference shortly.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House quoted Sir William Mckay. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things in the Mckay report was that there should be absolutely no move whatsoever towards the creation of two classes of MPs, but that is precisely what this does?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which is that the Mackay commission lays out various different routes that one could go down, but makes it absolutely clear that one of his fundamental principles was that there should not be two tiers of MPs.

English Votes for English Laws

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I think the McKay commission, which was convened by the Government, made some sensible suggestions, and I am surprised that they were dismissed so easily by the Government.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a major constitutional issue, and that what is therefore required is a non-partisan, non party-biased approach, which, sadly, is lacking?

[Ms Eagle]

I agree with my hon. Friend that changes of this kind are much better made on a cross-party basis, in an attempt to reach consensus, than by means of the partisan, semi-secretive process with which we are now faced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scotland Bill is the result of an all-party agreement made in the middle of the independence referendum by party leaders. It was called the “vow” at the time and it was led by the Prime Minister, with whom I know the hon. Gentleman has a love-hate relationship. A vow was made to the public of Scotland that that had to be delivered, so it is a bit difficult to say that we were not going to deliver it until after a constitutional convention. But evolving devolution and the settlements evolving at the moment surely make the case for us to have a more holistic look at how we deal with a range of issues, including the fact that the other place is now 900 strong. We read today that the Prime Minister has tried to get another 100 peers appointed to the other place, while we are trying to see the size of this place shrink. A constitutional convention should be taking a serious look at a range of issues so that we can balance our governance arrangements once more.

[Wayne David]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, to be fair to them, the last Government did begin a process of consultation, establishing the McKay commission to look into the whole issue? It took a great deal of evidence, and produced an interesting and, in many ways, sound report, but this Government have chosen to put that in the bin and make a set of half-baked, partisan proposals.

[Ms Eagle]

That is part of the problem: we have never had an explanation from the Government as to why the very sensible, well-debated, well-researched views of the McKay commission have been completely disregarded.

We appear to have a Government in a hurry to offend and to govern by provoking grievance and division, which is no doubt why they laughably refer to themselves—

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I am grateful to my colleague for giving way on the question who takes an interest in these matters and who is present today. Does he agree that it is notable that so few English Members are present to debate English-only laws?

[Pete Wishart]

I am looking round the Chamber and I see the usual suspects—those who take a real and deep interest in these matters—but I expected the Chamber to be full. Apparently, this was one of the most important issues during the election campaign. English votes for English laws was the issue that most upset the Conservatives’ English constituents in the general election campaign, and the slogan was, “100 days to deliver English votes for English laws”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

There’s a thought and a prospect! We already know that there could never now be a Scottish Prime Minister or a Scottish Cabinet Member for any of the devolved areas, such as Health or Education. John Reid, for example, would never have been able to do his job. I do not miss that, but this is how having two classes works its way through.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree—this is my understanding—that not only will the Speaker make a certification, but he or she will not be able to give reasons for it?

[Pete Wishart]

Worse than that, the Speaker’s certification will not be open to challenge. Because of parliamentary privilege, there will be no means to challenge it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian C. Lucas]

In the Committee I will not be able to move the amendment, because I will not be a member of the Committee, and I will not be able to vote on the amendment. Members from England will have twice as many votes as I will, even though our constituents go to the same hospitals—as is the case with the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson). It is outrageous.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend has made a series of powerful and practical points about what the proposals might mean in practice. Does he agree that the NHS in England is so large, compared with the NHS in Wales, that it has a huge influence on Wales, which Wales does not have on England?

[Ian C. Lucas]

That is certainly the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Another relatively small example—people might think it is such—shows the complexity of the situation we are talking about. In the run-up to the first police and crime commissioner elections, a mistake was made in Westminster because the election ballot papers were not bilingual. The legislation to correct that had to come from Westminster because it was an electoral matter, and it was done belatedly. Westminster clearly has the power to legislate on some Welsh language matters.

[Ian C. Lucas]

I was talking about the implications of giving Welsh MPs—dare I say it?—the same rights as MPs from England. Let us suppose, for example, that a future UK Labour Government dependent on Scottish and Welsh votes for an overall majority wished to lower tuition fees in England, and this was vetoed in a Committee comprising English Members only. After the Committee, the Education Secretary would have to defend in the House a policy with which he disagreed. In effect, he would be the Education Secretary for England, but England could have a Conservative majority. A Labour Minister cannot be responsible to a Conservative majority, so the logical solution would be to have a Conservative Education Secretary. However, there cannot be two Governments at the same time, one for devolved matters and the other for non-devolved matters. A Government have to be collectively responsible for all their policies, not just a selection of them. That is the type of situation that the Standing Orders will create.

The Standing Orders will, in practice, increase the Conservative majority on English devolved matters from 12 to 105 at a stroke. When Labour set up the Welsh Assembly, there were no Conservative MPs in Wales at all. With a majority of more than 150 in the House of Commons, the Labour party introduced an additional member voting system in Wales to ensure that there was a balanced representation within the National Assembly for Wales. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) would not have been elected to the National Assembly for Wales because she kept losing under the first-past-the-post system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I was coming to exactly that point. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Wrexham, a mechanism has to be devised so that in areas of doubt, of which there will be many, the Speaker can apprise himself of Members’ views and take any wider evidence he requires to make that determination. It seems to me that there would be nothing to preclude him from doing so on the basis of the draft Standing Orders as they stand. My suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is that an amendment to the draft Standing Orders should be made in order to accommodate that very procedure.

[Wayne David]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, and I can well understand the validity of his case. However, he suggests an interpretation of the draft Standing Orders which means that the Speaker may be asked to make a subjective decision. I suggest that that is fraught with difficulties.

[Mr Jones]

As I just said, it seems to me that a further amendment should be made to the draft Standing Orders to accommodate that.

I am conscious of your strictures about time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to say to my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I raised this issue as long ago as 16 December 2014 with my right hon. Friend’s predecessor, William Hague, who said in reply to my question:

“In respect of a small number of cross-border issues involving a strong structural dependence—health care in Wales is one such instance—there is a strong case for a wide definition of what constitutes an English matter, so that others can be involved.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1276-67.]

I ask the Government Front-Bench team to consider that. It seems to me that a sensible amendment could be made to the draft Standing Orders as they are now, in order to accommodate this issue of structural dependence, which is not properly addressed at the moment. As an instrument, the Standing Orders are somewhat blunt as drafted, and need to be refined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

May I speak quite bluntly? As it happens, I have great affection for Members of the Scottish National party. They know what they are fighting for and what they want, and it is called independence. Let us not be fooled, however. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it. The plain fact is that SNP Members do not like being outvoted in the United Kingdom Parliament. That is what this boils down to.

The hon. Gentleman has touched on what “devolution” actually means. He may or may not agree with this, but the greatest constitutional experts, Bradley and Ewing, define it as follows:

“Devolution is not a term of art in constitutional law. Unlike federalism,”—

on which the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire constantly harps—

“the nature of devolution within the United Kingdom depends not on a written constitution, but on the legislation authorising the devolution and on the practice that develops on the use of the new structure for decision-making.”

They go on to say that

“devolution has been defined as involving ‘the delegation of central government powers without the relinquishment of sovereignty’”.

That is what the greatest experts say. If SNP Members go off and speak to their constitutional law experts in Scotland, they will find that they do not disagree. Mr Ewing comes from Scotland anyway.

[Wayne David]

The hon. Gentleman’s quote is constitutionally and historically correct, but does he agree that a central tenet of established constitutional practice is that all Members of Parliament should be equal? These proposals will drive a coach and horses through that by creating inequality among Members.

[Sir William Cash]

I shall not cite the obvious George Orwell quote that comes to mind about all animals being equal, because that might be thought to be rather disrespectful. However, the bottom line is that the hon. Gentleman is just not right. When we create different functions, voters expect the Member of Parliament who represents them to be accountable for those functions. This is not a great mystery or great science. It is a simple question of where the lines are drawn. They were drawn by the United Kingdom Parliament and that is where the matter stands.

I want to remind Members about the Scotland Act 1998, although not many who were in Parliament at the time are still here—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I will come back to it, but I will now move on because I do not want to take up too much time.

To move from the general point to the particular one, I accept that what we are debating strikes me as imperfect, but I am afraid I happen to think that a lot of things we have done recently in respect of devolution are imperfect as well. I emphasise that I differ from my party on the vow, not because I think it is wrong to give more devolution to Scotland—there is a powerful argument for saying that Scotland should have more devolution than we are giving it—but because the process we have embarked on appears to me to be essentially incoherent. It is like a car driving along a road and lurching one way and then the other in a series of spins. I do not think that that is a productive way to operate in the long term, but we are where we are.

The proposed Standing Orders are essentially very modest—they really are. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House listened about extending the period of debate and that the Procedure Committee will have an opportunity to look at them, but they are modest. They constitute about as small a shield to English susceptibilities as it is possible to devise. In my view, they will not in any significant way diminish the role of MPs as a collective group in this House.

[Wayne David]

What was the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s considered view of Sir William McKay’s proposals?

[Mr Grieve]

The McKay proposals were good, but they preceded the vow. Once we got to the point of further devolution, they started to look rather inadequate. That is precisely the problem.

Although these measures are not perfect, they meet my constituents’ needs. I have one major anxiety, which has been highlighted before, and it is over the process of certification by the Speaker. If we are moving down this road, it would be better to proceed by way of primary legislation, followed by a change to Standing Orders. There is a question over whether these measures are justiciable. I am perfectly familiar with article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but that does not mean that somebody will not have a go at doing it. In a Parliament where we are increasingly passing power out, to emphasise constantly our sovereignty and expect nobody to scrutinise the different arrangements that we are bringing about seems, in the long term, unrealistic.

That brings me to my final point. My view is that these measures can only be temporary. I am aware that there are other Members across the House who take the view that if we are to preserve the Union of the United Kingdom, we will have to take a much longer, harder and, I hope, more consensual—although that is often difficult to achieve—look at the way in which we conduct our affairs. As I put my Unionism absolutely at the forefront of my political life—I believe that is what my constituents want, too—I am prepared to consider major constitutional change, including moves towards a written constitution. In my judgment, that is probably the only way to provide a framework in which the highly complex and different needs of different parts of the United Kingdom can be addressed. That is not a popular theme because it touches on Parliament’s sovereignty, it certainly touches on article 9 of the Bill of Rights, and I do not for the life of me see how it could ever be done without making the constitution capable, ultimately, of being interpreted by a court. That raises equal problems, but I do not think that they are ones that, in the long term, can be ducked.

I believe that people in the United Kingdom—the evidence of this is overwhelming from the Scottish referendum last year—wish to operate and live together. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was so right when he said that it is none of our business to put our personal needs, Parliament’s needs, the Scottish Parliament’s needs, the Welsh Assembly’s needs or, for that matter, the Northern Ireland Assembly’s needs before the needs of our citizens. We are here to respond to their concerns.

One thing that underpins my Unionism—this has become harder and harder to stick to over the years, but I have done so—is the belief that the interests of people in Wick, Dundee, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the hometown where my family originated, Hawick, must be every bit as relevant to me as those of my own constituents in Beaconsfield, and must continue to be so even if, as I pointed out earlier, I can no longer intervene on their behalf in the way that I did in the past. Once the Scottish National party starts to consider that, it will appreciate why some of its arguments against the proposals this evening show it in a rather poor light. It is the pot calling the kettle black in respect of comity within the United Kingdom.

The only solution is for those of us who have some goodwill in this matter—that includes SNP Members if they wish to exercise that goodwill—to participate together to create a new structure that will be lasting and enduring for the whole country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

There are two reasons why William Gladstone did not come up with the dog’s breakfast before us.

[Wayne David]

I think, from memory, that the quote was, “It is beyond the wit of man.”

[Alex Salmond]

I thought that there was a bit of shoulder in there, but none the less I will accept the hon. Gentleman’s correction, which is well meant.

So these things have been considered before. First, given my experience in the House, to accept the blithe assurances that everything will be all right on the day of the Committee would be extremely foolish, and I am glad the hon. Member for Belfast East does not accept them, and rightly so. Secondly, these matters have been considered, and Tam Dalyell is correct: there are two absolute answers to this question. There is also a third, which my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has proposed and which is that we could have a federal situation under which we define what the federal Parliament does and what each national Parliament does. That would work as well, although the predominance of England as a nation within these islands makes federalism difficult, but none the less it could work in constitutional terms. What will not work is what is on the Order Paper.

We are told this is the burning issue—the great issue—facing English Members of Parliament, and not just English Members: we are told that the people across the nation of England talk about little else in the pubs, in football grounds or in their living rooms. They are all talking about EVEL, so we are instructed. We are also told this is the great issue Conservative Members have to face so early in this Session. Yet when we come to debate it—let us congratulate the Leader of the House on making the concession of having a debate—what happens? I have come into this debate a number of times through the day and—I shall try to put this as kindly as possible—the Government Benches have not exactly been overflowing with Conservative Members.

In fact, all the speeches in the past couple of hours have come from this side because of the paucity of Conservative Members in the Chamber. The explanation for that paucity could be that the state of arrogance that has set in among Conservative Members is such that the debate does not really matter to them because the result will go their way at the end of the day. They will see it all right in September and they will get their way, so why should they turn up today? An alternative explanation could be that this matter is not the great issue of state that we were assured necessitated the proposals before us.

I want to spend just a second illustrating the full enormity and absurdity of the document that has been distributed to hon. Members. The content of the paragraphs is bad enough. I have read the one headed “What about Finance bills” a number of times and I am none the wiser. However, I suppose that all the information is crystallised in the remarkable diagram on page 5, which is entitled “Outline of model”. This is meant to make everything clear and to help hon. Members understand the purity of the process. It has been pointed out that a further four stages could be added to the passage of Bills through this House. There is the potential for legislation to become frozen in aspic and totally stalemated. There is also the potential for ping-pong. That can happen between here and the House of Lords anyway, but the proposals seem to offer many more opportunities for ping or pong. The fact that we need a diagram that looks more like the Duke of Wellington’s formation at the battle of Waterloo than a serious coherent proposal for a legislative process should tell us that what is being proposed has not been fully thought through.

There was a reason why William Gladstone did not believe there was an effective answer to the Irish question in relation to the proceedings of this House, back in the 19th century. There was a reason why Tam Dalyell did not think there was an effective answer to the West Lothian question, short of having a unitary Parliament or independence for Scotland. There is also a reason why Bill McKay’s committee did not propose a veto for English MPs, and it is that such proposals will be injurious to the rights of hon. Members and, indeed, to the people they represent. That point was made earlier, and it is absolutely correct. These proposals will create different classes of Members of Parliament with different rights before the House. They will also put the Speaker in the invidious position of having to certify Bills in a way that will deprive certain Members of the rights that other hon. Members have.

I think that I know how the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons will sum up the debate, because she has given certain information to other hon. Members earlier. She is going to rest her case on the security that the financial estimates are within an envelope and are decided in accordance with the Budget resolutions. She will also say that that determines the Barnett consequentials, regardless of what happens. Having been the First Minister of Scotland, I can tell her that that is not the case. A range of things can happen that will alter the Barnett consequentials. Movements between departmental expenditure in the UK can alter them, because the consequential is different for each Department.

We have heard constant reference to the example of tuition fees for England and Wales. If that issue were voted on, the vote would not impact on that year’s financial envelope. A decision was made to raise the top-up fees for English students at English universities, and it was voted through by Scottish Labour MPs—to their great shame—in January 2004, if I remember correctly. The proposal was opposed by the SNP, the only party that has consistently opposed tuition fee increases for English students in England, but the vote was carried by a majority of six.

The argument put to us by the Conservative party and by the Labour rebels back in 2004 was that, if the Blair proposal went forward on tuition fees, it meant, as surely as night followed day, that direct expenditure on education and universities in England would decline and loan spending—loan allowances for students—would increase to enable them to pay the fees. There was not a direct Barnett consequential in that year within the financial envelope, but a policy decision that had been made affected the finances of the Scottish Parliament—of course it did; the logic is inescapable.

I am therefore glad to see the Leader of the House returning to his place. I hope that when he reads Hansard he does not think I have been too ungracious towards him. [Interruption.] He says surely not, but I was just reflecting that I thought it was unwise for him to attempt this patronisation of the hon. Member for Belfast East, because a number of examples from before the Leader of the House was a Member of this House tell us exactly why his proposals are inadequate. No Leader of the House should come here with a document that is clearly inadequate and blithely tell hon. Members to accept assurances that he cannot possibly give if he has not written them down on paper. The spatchcock nature of these proposals illustrates why if the Conservative party, without any great support from its Back Benchers and without any coherent argument, wanted to bring this forward, it should have done so as legislation to be properly scrutinised, not as this codswallop. We have been presented with it last week and re-presented with it this week, and unless the Leader of the House mends his ways and changes his tone and his direction, no doubt we will be re-presented with it in September. I do think that he will rue the day he ever got involved in this total, absolute nonsense.

English Votes on English Laws

Wayne David Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He is assiduous in his attendance and I could never accuse him of not being here from the beginning of a debate. The use of Standing Orders to make that change is a terrible precedent.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The shadow Leader of the House will be aware that the McKay commission studied the issues in some detail a couple of years ago, and came to the conclusion that any proposals

“must be widely regarded as fair…and respect the prerogatives of all MPs.”

Why does she believe the Government have rejected the McKay proposals?

[Ms Eagle]

I tried to ask the Leader of the House that question during his statement last week, but answer came there none. I agree with my hon. Friend’s interpretation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I am strongly in favour of a distinct English voice in so-called English-only legislation, but I am totally, implacably against the proposals before us today. There are four reasons for that.

The first is that the proposals create two classes of Members of Parliament for the first time in our history: English Members of Parliament and everyone else— Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish. That is a fundamental departure from what we have seen in British constitutional arrangements since time immemorial. The proposals do this by giving a veto to English Members. The political and constitutional result will be that a great deal of resentment is created throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The proposals are fundamentally anti-United Kingdom. They create division and discord. We should be pulling together, not pulling apart.

Secondly, the proposals do not understand the reality of asymmetrical devolution in modern Britain, and do not understand the new relationship that exists between the nations of the United Kingdom. That relationship is more important than ever before, but the proposals do not acknowledge that the largest part of our Union is England, with 85% of the population. What happens in England inevitably has a huge impact on what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom, especially with an asymmetrical devolution arrangement. I am a Welshman and proud of it. I am British as well, but I recognise that legislation determined in England has a huge impact on Wales, and Welsh Members should be involved in the determination of that legislation.

The border between English and Wales is porous. It is not a hard and fast border. What happens in England has a huge impact on what happens in all parts of Wales, particularly in border areas and particularly in north-east Wales. There is often cross-border movement, with people from one part of the country going to visit hospitals in another part of the country. Therefore what happens in the English health service, for example, affects people in Wales, and there should be some facility to allow us to make that point.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the fundamental unfairness for my constituents, who cannot vote on legislation produced by the Welsh Assembly, despite the porous nature of the border that he referred to?

[Wayne David]

I am all in favour of dialogue and of different opinions being taken into account. What I am against is people effectively being vetoed out of any possible arrangements. That is very harmful.

Let me give another example of how the proposals could deny Wales a legitimate voice in the deliberations of this House. We may well see in the near future legislation for a new runway at Heathrow. It could be decided by a planning application or by a hybrid Bill. If such a Bill comes before the House of Commons, it will have a huge impact on the people of Wales. We will be strongly in favour of an extra runway at Heathrow. It will have a huge and positive impact on Wales, yet we will be excluded from any say or deliberation on that. That is fundamentally unfair. There would be an English veto against us if we promoted something that would favour Welsh interests, when it legitimately should do so.

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

My hon. Friend identifies an important point, which is the determination of what is an English issue? The point that he has just made shows that something that may appear on the surface to be an English issue actually has a great effect on Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Indeed—that is the essence. The proposals create artificial divisions in our United Kingdom.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) made the same point. It is important to put on the record that no debate will take place in this House from which any Member of Parliament will be excluded.

[Wayne David]

Members will have a debate, but their voice and their vote will be worth a heck of a lot less. They will be made second class, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that reality. He is creating second-class Members in this House and fuelling English nationalism.

The third reason why I am fundamentally opposed to these arrangements has been admitted—the proposals do not take account of the funding arrangements that exist within the United Kingdom, especially the Barnett consequentials. Decisions will be made in this House which have a huge bearing on Wales and other parts of the UK, and Welsh Members will not have a full participatory role. That is morally wrong.

Finally, I am against these proposals because they are complex, incoherent, unclear and obtuse. I am particularly concerned that there is no process of consultation on the House of Lords, yet there is a new procedure for dealing with amendments from the other place—amendments that might well be worthy of consideration. They will be subject to a new voting procedure but will not be fully debated.

As other Members have said, I am extremely concerned about the new and onerous responsibilities that will be placed on Mr Speaker. One of the great strengths of this Parliament and of this House of Commons is that we have as the Speaker someone who is objective and impartial and has the confidence of the whole House. It is a huge mistake to drag the role of the Speaker into deliberations about what is English-only legislation or clauses, because that is effectively politicising the role. That is something that the House and democracy will live to regret.

Therefore I am extremely concerned about the proposals before us. I am extremely worried about the way they are being rushed through this House. I urge the Conservative party, in the interests of democracy and in the interests of the United Kingdom, to think again, please.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

First, it may be appropriate to wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday. May I point out to him that there is an Opposition day next week, and the subject of that debate has not been announced yet? A couple of Opposition Members have expressed an interest in discussing the issues he raises, so there is an ideal opportunity for them and they should speak to the shadow Leader of the House.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Later this month, the Government will receive a report from the Electoral Commission on the completeness of the electoral registers, in preparation for full implementation of individual electoral registration. May we have a report, and a debate in this House, on that very subject?

[Chris Grayling]

I believe the new approach to electoral registration has been absolutely the right thing to do. We are a society and a democracy that prides itself on being clean and free from fraud, but that has not always been the case in recent years. The reform takes us a step nearer having a fraud-free system. The House will of course have the chance to study the Electoral Commission’s report when it is published, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to raise the issues when he chooses to do so.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend may well know that there is a clear process and timetable for this, and for rare conditions the decision to fund treatments and drugs is made by NHS England. A draft clinical commissioning policy on the use of Translarna for the treatment of DMD has been developed, and it is now being considered for funding. The consultation runs until 27 April, so it has another six or seven weeks to run. I urge my right hon. Friend and other colleagues who have raised this issue in the House to make their views known to NHS England throughout that process.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Joanna Michael, the daughter of my constituent Angela Michael, was brutally murdered in 2009. The Independent Police Complaints Commission ruled that she was failed by the police, yet the Supreme Court has ruled that a negligence claim cannot be brought against the police because they have immunity. May we have a debate with a view to changing the law so that the police are held to account in the same way as doctors, teachers and the armed forces?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about a disturbing case. I will refer it to my ministerial colleagues, and there will be further questions to Ministers at the Ministry of Justice before the Dissolution of Parliament. I will ensure that Ministers consider the matter he has raised.