Paul Murphy MP speaking in the House of Commons, October 2007

12 December 2007

Devolution, not Divorce: Working together for Wales

News from Parliament from Paul Murphy MP

Torfaen MP Paul Murphy MP has today spoken in the House of Commons Welsh Grand Committee debate on the implications for Wales of the Government’s legislative programme.

In his speech, Paul Murphy MP raised the following issues:

• The issue of HMRC reorganisation, especially the Pontypool HMRC Office.
• His views on devolution: ‘devo-realism’ as opposed to ‘devo-scepticism’, and the need for MPs, AMs, Cllrs and MEPs to work together for the benefit of people in Wales and Welsh services. Devolution is not about Divorce.
• The danger of obsession with identity and nationhood, rather than concentrating on the things that people really care most about.
• The need for proper scrutiny in Parliament of Legislative Competence Orders (‘LCOs’ are requests by the National Assembly for the power to legislate in a specified area).
• Potentially controversial examples of LCOs – the sale of Council Housing and the Welsh Language.
• The need for a cautious and consensual approach to the sensitive area of the Welsh language.
• The Local Government Settlement and the need for dialogue and partnership with Local Government, especially as devolution has made Ministers more accessible.

The full text of the speech follows below…


Welsh Grand Committee Speech
12th December 2007

Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab): May I first associate myself with part of the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)? That was the part about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices. As the Committee is aware, the last time that we met I raised the question of Pontypool, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have another look and pass on my views to the Treasury, which is responsible for the matter.

I have been trying to work out whether or not I am a devo-sceptic and I have come to the conclusion that I am not. In 1978, I was a devo-opponent, and in 1997 I voted for devolution. My constituents agreed with me in 1978, but they did not agree with me in 1997, because they voted against a Welsh Assembly on both occasions. However, I would rather describe myself as a devo-realist, in the sense that what is here is here. I am not all that keen on a coalition in Cardiff, but we are where we are, and we have to work in the current political climate for the benefit of the people whom we represent, whether we are Members of Parliament, Assembly Members or members of local authorities.
When I was Secretary of State for Wales, it was my job to ensure a smooth transition from the constitutional arrangements that we had before devolution to where we are today. However, devolution is not about divorce. It is about partnership between our Government in Parliament, the Assembly in government in Cardiff and our local authority colleagues in their respective council chambers. Above all else, devolution must be about improving the lives of the people whom we jointly represent, whether it involves the health service, schools or something else.

I repeat the point that I have made in previous meetings that any clamour for constitutional change passes by my constituents. I have received two letters about the constitutional arrangements in Wales in the past year, both of which opposed them, but that is all that I have had. No one rings me up, e-mails me, writes to me or stops me in the street about that issue, but they do so regarding the issues that I have just mentioned, which are the services that we are all pledged to improve.

We must take great care that we do not become a little bit too obsessed with identity and nationhood. I do not have to look in the mirror every quarter of an hour to remind myself that I am a Welshman—I am, and I am proud of it. At the same time, however, I know that what my constituents expect of me is an improvement in their lives. I believe that the arrangement that we have got, whereby our Assembly deals with certain issues in Cardiff and we share responsibility with it here in Parliament, is a good arrangement for improving our constituents’ lives.

I am particularly pleased about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s comments today about the way in which this Parliament will scrutinise legislation affecting devolution through so-called legislative competence orders and the framework powers in various Bills, which are, of course, in the Queen’s Speech.

I very much welcome the detail that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described to us today. I welcome the fact that he will take certain issues even further and examine those matters. It shows that, right across the political divide in this Welsh Grand Committee, there is a belief that we can work together to ensure that we examine these matters properly.

I do not believe for one second that we should be rubber-stamping LCOs or legislation for devolution, because we would not be doing our job as Members of this Parliament. We must scrutinise such matters properly for the purpose of correctness, certainly, but also to establish whether we think that there is a case to be made for the particular powers, whatever they might be, to be devolved to the National Assembly.

I think that, overwhelmingly, most LCOs, when they come here, will be passed without too much fuss. However, there may be occasions when things are a bit more controversial, and I will cite two LCOs as examples. I think that the LCO that deals with the ending of the sale of council houses will produce controversy. For the past two decades in Wales, the fact that houses have been sold by local authorities has meant that people in Wales, by becoming home owners, have improved their lot.

There are areas of housing need that we must be careful about, and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy touched on one or two of those issues today. However, a warning shot should be sent by those of us who represent constituencies that have traditionally contained a large proportion of council houses. In my constituency, Torfaen, because of the new town development corporation, there was a larger proportion of council houses as a percentage of housing stock than any other constituency in Wales, much of which has now been sold. All our constituencies face housing shortages, and we need to consider the issue very carefully.

The other issue, of course, is the Welsh language, responsibility for which is shared between those of us in Westminster, where it is a reserve power, and Members of the Welsh Assembly, who have a great interest in the importance of the Welsh language. Historically, the issue has been enormously controversial, and it has to be handled sensitively. Many hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies would be deeply troubled if an extension to the Welsh Language Act 1993 disadvantaged private companies, for example. We cannot afford for companies not to come to Wales because of potentially prohibitive Welsh language legislation We cannot afford to lose companies in Wales that might use the excuse of Welsh language provisions to leave our Welsh people.

Mrs. Gillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although we want to preserve the language and the culture of Wales, we do not want to allow non-tariff barriers to act as a disincentive to people who want to bring their skills and come to work in Wales? There have been reports in the media that people have been discouraged in their work environment because they are less than fluent in the Welsh language. That is a shame, because it could cut off Wales from a supply of skilled workers coming into the country to help to support our industries, which we need.

Mr. Murphy: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said. I represent a constituency that is one of the most anglicised in Wales—I think that it is 98 per cent. English speaking. Yet there is one Welsh language medium comprehensive school and two primary schools where Welsh is taught exclusively, and all young people are taught Welsh in the other schools, which I welcome. I also welcome the consensus on the extension of the Welsh language in Wales. I would be worried if such an extension had an adverse effect.

Hywel Williams: I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) have raised the matter of jobs moving out of Wales because of the language issue or, alternatively, of employers being discouraged from moving to Wales because of worries about the language. Can the right hon. Gentleman give actual examples of employers who have refused to come to Wales because of such fears?

Mr. Murphy: Of course I cannot, because the measure has not been passed yet. I am referring to legislation that might be introduced and simply saying, “Take care.” It is a measure for which all Members of Parliament and Members of the Welsh Assembly and councillors have responsibility. I am certainly not saying that legislation on the Welsh language has been wrong—far from it. I have just explained to the Committee that in my constituency there has been a flourishing improvement in the Welsh language in schools and elsewhere for people who want to learn it, but we must take care.

Mr. Roger Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned legislation on the sale of council houses and the Welsh language, which I accept are contentious issues. Surely, however, the locus for decision-making must be in the Assembly, which is what devolution is about. Our consideration will be whether the LCO is compliant with the legislation that has already been enacted, rather than what the Welsh Assembly will do with it. We can make those representations in other quarters.

Mr. Murphy: The Government of Wales Act 1998 is very finely crafted. When I was in government before the legislation was introduced, we took great interest in how it would be passed. The final Act has given the House of Commons a power in respect of the extension of powers to the National Assembly for Wales. It is not a rubber-stamping power, but a power that must be exercised properly and with proper scrutiny. In the Welsh language case, in particular, the powers are shared, and it is not the case that the Assembly exclusively has power with regard to the Welsh language, because this House of Commons and this Parliament also have power.

Mrs. Gillan: In order to help the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Caernarfon, I was referring to a broadcast—I think it was on Radio 4—where an individual working in Wales asked for his voice to be disguised. If the hon. hon. Member for Caernarfon were to ask the media unit in the House of Commons, it would be able to get the broadcast for him. It is right to reflect those concerns, because that is reasonable and in the best interests of Wales.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Lady has made a perfectly fair point.

Mr. Llwyd: I heard that broadcast, and I was aghast. I could not believe it. It involved a person agreeing to meet a journalist on a dark night, down a country lane, in a van, because he was concerned about his—oh my God, come on! It was not Baghdad or Basra; it was Blaenau Gwent, or wherever. It was absolute nonsense from beginning to end. If people could not see through that, then good heavens. The point that I want to make to the right hon. Gentleman is this: I have a huge regard for him, and I know he would not want his comments to be misunderstood. He is a supporter of the Welsh language as much as I am. Can I take him back to when we were discussing the Welsh Language Act 1993, many years ago, when people said “it is going to impact on jobs”. Whatever legislation is introduced, there will have to be a gradualist approach. Nobody would ever sanction making it difficult for inward investment, whether they be small companies or large, and I am sure it is not beyond the ken of all good-thinking men and women in Wales to devise a scheme that does not penalise anyone.

Mr. Murphy: It is a question of being able to support the Welsh language in different ways wherever we live. In the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy’s area, for example, the approach to the Welsh tongue would be entirely different from the area that I represent. It is a fair point that, in Meirionnydd or other parts of Welsh-speaking Wales, the use of the Welsh language in the private sector is probably beneficial to people, but the situation will be different somewhere else. I am merely using that example to make it clear that we will need properly to discuss and scrutinise particular LCOs when they arrive in the House of Commons, because we share those powers.

Mr. Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I are on the same wavelength. Unlike the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who is happy to rubber stamp anything that comes from Cardiff, we will want to scrutinise LCOs line by line to make sure that they are in the best interests of the people of Wales. Does he agree with me that if we are to sustain and support the language, then the one area where the language is strong in Wales is education? Why is that? It is because people choose to send their children to Welsh medium schools. Where the language is in difficulties is where people try to compel others to use it.

Mr. Murphy: I accept that entirely, which is why we have to tread carefully in dealing with these issues. In the past, it has not been a good story, because the issue became a political football. Now, there is a general consensus, but we still need to take care.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the need to scrutinise the proposed legislation. Of course, at present the only body conducting pre-legislative scrutiny is the Welsh Affairs Committee. Does he feel that there is scope for widening pre-legislative scrutiny to include more Welsh Members, or indeed other Members of this House?

Mr. Murphy: I do not want to go into detail on that issue. I think that the Welsh Affairs Committee—under my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon’s able chairmanship—and the equivalent Committee in the Assembly will do a very good job on pre-legislative scrutiny. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when legislation has been through those processes and returns to the structures in the House of Commons, we should be given a proper opportunity to debate the issues, particularly when they are controversial. The Secretary of State has rightly and wisely told us today how we could deal with that.

The other issue that I want to raise relates to public expenditure in Wales and the partnership in Wales between councils, Assembly Members and ourselves. I believed that one of the great aspects of devolution was the accessibility of Ministers in an Assembly. When we had the old system of two junior Ministers and a Secretary of State, the accessibility of Ministers to local authorities and to people in Wales generally was, inevitably, limited. One of the great changes is that with a locally and regionally based Assembly in Cardiff, and Ministers from Wales in Wales to deal with the issues, Ministers are more accessible. Therefore the involvement of partners in government in Wales is more effective, and it is about listening to those partners.

I am sure that other hon. Members are troubled by the local government financial settlement. Although I do not for one second think that the expenditure, or the grant, that we give through Parliament to Wales should be mirrored precisely in the Assembly—that is not what devolution is about—I believe that Andrew Davies, who incidentally is a very able Minister, should have another look at the financial settlement. Compared with a 2.3 per cent. increase in Wales, in England there has been, for example, a 3.6 per cent. increase in the south-west, a 4.4 per cent. increase in the west midlands, and a 4 per cent. increase in the north-west, which makes the points about comparisons between England and Wales quite telling.

Albert Owen: My right hon. Friend has made an important point. Although there has been an increase in the settlement from Westminster to Cardiff bay, there is great disparity in the local government settlement within Wales. The fault lies in the formula, which seems to penalise some of the poorest county councils in Wales. For example, in my area we have had a 1.1 per cent. rise this year, which is the lowest ever, despite having an Assembly Member in the Assembly Government for the first time. It is the formula that is at stake, and when a tight settlement is in process, would it not be better equally to distribute an increase across all Welsh authorities?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, we do get that. In my constituency the percentages are 2 per cent., 1.7 per cent. and 2.3 per cent. In fact, the pay bill will increase by far more than the settlement itself. The problem has always been whether the block grant should be absolutely mirrored in Wales. The answer is no, because that is what devolution is about. Everything that we have discussed involves working together for the benefit of our people. It is difficult for Mr. and Mrs. Jones in my constituency, or whatever Welsh constituency it might be, to disentangle who is responsible for what and who does what. All they know are the services that they eventually receive, and because local government deals with some of the most important services, such as education and social services, it is important to get it right. I hope that Andrew Davies will consider the issue again for the benefit of our constituents.

Wales is a small place—just over 3 million people are represented jointly by all of us—and it is important that we consider that. I end with that, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. The constitutional parliamentary year ahead will be interesting for those who represent Welsh constituencies, but I repeat that it is important that we properly scrutinise legislation that affects Wales, because that is what we were elected to do.

Site designed and developed by Public Impact

Site promoted and issued on his own behalf by Paul Murphy MP. 73 Upper Trosnant Street, Pontypool, Torfaen NP4 8AU.
This site is paid for by the Communications Allowance available to MPs. Site admin