House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Jun 1992

Column 248

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

10.15 pm

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker, relating to Standing Order No. 130 on Select Committees. I raise the matter because it has become clear to hon. Members on both sides-- [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly and not hold their meetings here? [Interruption.] Order. An hon. Member is on his feet.

Mr. McCartney : Thank you, Madam Speaker, for standing up for the little people in the House.

Madam Speaker : Order. They may be small people, but there is a lot of personality there.

Mr. McCartney : I am lost for words, Madam Speaker--for once. Standing Order No. 130 relates to the setting up of Select Committees. It has become clear to hon. Members on both sides who served on Select Committees in the previous Parliament, in particular Committees whose current investigations were suspended because of the general election, that no effort has been made by the authorities of the House, through the usual channels, to bring forward appropriate measures for those Select Committees to be set up. In particular, the Social Services Select Committee has been left in limbo while people laugh all the way to Liechtenstein with people's resources from the Maxwell pension funds. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to use your good offices in the appropriate quarters to bring before the House orders for that Select Committee to be set up before the summer recess.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman must seek that information from the Committee of Selection and not from the Chair.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : Further to that pointof order, Madam Speaker. I hope that Front-Bench Members heard Opposition support for the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would do your best to draw to the attention of Front-Bench Members the answer which I received today to my question on the cost to public funds of members of the Department of the Clerk of the House who currently have nothing to do because the departmental Select Committees have not been set-up. The cost of the Clerks is £175,862 a month. If the departmental Select Committees are not set up until October, the cost to public funds in the Clerk's Department will, by my calculation, be more than £1 million.

Madam Speaker : I protect Back Benchers as much as I protect Officers of the House who cannot answer for themselves. I am using my good offices to see that progress

Column 249

is made in setting up the Select Committees. I am sure that what I have said has been heard in all quarters of the House and especially on the two Front Benches.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not prolonging the point of order unnecessarily. Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Ross : As you are using your good offices to ensure that the Select Committees are set up, will you go further and ensure that there is a Select Committee for Northern Ireland?

Madam Speaker : I have gone as far as I intend to go this evening. We now move on to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

Column 250

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

10.21 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones) : I beg to move

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill shall consist of twenty Members, including not fewer than twelve Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.

Inevitably, this is a narrow debate. It is not about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is about the consideration of the Bill, for the motion is purely procedural. As Standing Order No. 86 is referred to in the motion, it may be helpful to give a brief outline of its main requirements.

With certain exceptions, Standing Order No. 86 requires that "the Committee of Selection shall nominate not fewer than sixteen nor more than fifty Members to serve on each standing committee for the consideration of each bill".

It requires the Committee of Selection to have regard to "the qualifications of those Members nominated and to the composition of the House".

There is a further proviso which states :

"for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales."

There is clearly an inconsistency in the Standing Order. There cannot be a Standing Committee which reflects the composition of the House, is limited to 50 members and is made up of the Members for all constituencies in Wales. A Committee meeting all those requirements has not been constituted for some considerable time, irrespective of the party in power. Hon. Members will be interested to know that the Welsh Language Act 1967, the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Act 1983 and the Caldey Island Act 1990 all had Standing Committee membership other than as specified in Standing Order No. 86.

In turn, none of the motions to set up the membership of those Standing Committees, which were similar to the one that we are considering this evening, was opposed. I suspect that the only reason why the Standing Order has not been amended is the relative infrequency of legislation that relates exclusively to Wales.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : The Minister has quoted precedents to the House. When did a private Bill last become a public Bill?

Mr. Jones : We are dealing with the motion before the House. Proceedings on the Bill have gone on for a long time. I should be out of order if I strayed into considering the Bill itself. Many of us feel that the Bill has been more debated than anything else. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we confine ourselves to the procedural motion.

The Government are doing what has often been done before by tabling the motion.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is misleading the House.

Madam Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will retract what he has just said and rephrase his comments.

Column 251

Mr. Rogers : The Minister is inadvertently misleading the House.

Madam Speaker : Order. It is perfectly all right to use the word inadvertently.

Mr. Rogers : He is inadvertently misleading the House. The Bill has never been discussed, as it is a new Government Bill which has been introduced to replace a private Bill. The Minister is correct in saying that the issues have been discussed fairly well, but the Bill is new.

Madam Speaker : That does not seem to be a point of order for me. This is a technical motion relating to a Standing Order.

Mr. Jones : By tabling the motion, the Government are merely doing what has often been done before.

The motion will allow the Committee of Selection to nominate a Standing Committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill which reflects the composition of the House and ensures substantial representation by Members with Welsh constituencies. Of course, it remains for the House to decide what it will do on future occasions.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : The Minister has quoted several precedents. Will he confirm that there is an important difference between them and the situation that we face tonight? In the precedents that he quoted, a Labour Government altered the order to facilitate the position for a Conservative Opposition. Tonight, a Conservative Government are disadvantaging the Labour Opposition.

Mr. Jones : No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that that is not correct. If he refers back to all the examples from 1967 to the present, he will find that those in 1983 and 1990 were under a Conservative Government. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that none of the motions involved in setting up the Committee stages in those examples was opposed.

I commend the motion to the House.

10.26 pm

Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) : In April 1907, the then President of the Board of Education, and my direct predecessor as Member for Torfaen, Mr. Reginald McKenna, spoke in the House on behalf of the Government and in support of Standing Order No. 86, which the Government, in their arrogance, are proposing to abandon. The House believed 85 years ago--and made that belief resolute by a Division--that Welsh Members should have the same rights and privileges as their Scottish counterparts when dealing with exclusively Welsh legislation. All those years ago Members believed that that argument was right, and we do not believe that it has changed with the passage of time.

It is ironic that only last week the Scottish Grand Committee dealt with the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, as a move for a greater say by Scottish Members of Parliament in dealing with Scottish legislation. I believe that the rule has served the test of time. The Minister said that the Standing Order has been set aside on a number of occasions. It was set aside on two occasions under a Labour Government : in June 1975, for the Welsh Development Agency Bill ; and in July 1976, for the Development of Rural Wales Bill.

Column 252

However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, the circumstances then were different. They were completely separate. The move was not challenged. The Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Development of Rural Wales Bill were supported by both sides of the House and both the bodies involved are today regarded as successful agencies by the Government. There was never any question of the Government having to bring in extra troop reinforcements from England to get the legislation through. Wales then, as now, produced more Labour Members than Members of any other party, and there was a Labour Government. Also, the proportion of Welsh Members on the Committees was different from the proportion proposed today. Today, the Government are proposing that, out of 20 members of the Committee, only 12 should be from Welsh constituencies, but in the two cases that I have quoted, 14 out of 16 were Members of Parliament, at a time when many Welsh Members were Ministers in a Labour Government. The comparison is not a good one, and the House should be looking at these matters in a different way.

The Government accept the wider membership of Committees when it suits them. Only two weeks ago, the House dealt with all stages of the Non- Domestic Rating Bill on the Floor of the House. Two years ago, two days were set aside so that what was then the Development Board for Rural Wales Bill could be dealt with by all hon. Members. I agree with the Minister about one thing. The debate is not whether we are for or against the plan for the Cardiff bay barrage. It is about the principle of changing the Standing Order. However, many of us believe that it is essential that membership of the Committee that scrutinises the details of the Bill is as wide as possible, and includes all Welsh Members of Parliament. That is for one reason, and the reason that makes this example different from those that the Minister gave. It is that the Bill has aroused great controversy among those on both sides of the argument. It is proper that those involved in the debates on the Bill should be able properly to scrutinise its details.

The Bill deals not with any old town but with the capital city of Wales, and inevitably that is of great interest to all Welsh Members. It has serious implications for the environment of the Cardiff bay area, as the Minister, who represents part of Cardiff, knows only too well himself. It is of great interest also to many Welsh Members who do not represent Cardiff, but who have a deep interest in environmental matters. It must be of interest to us all because of the tens of millions of pounds that will be spent out of the public purse on Cardiff bay. If that money is to be spent, the very nature of the spending needs to be scrutinised by all Welsh Members of Parliament.

The reality is that the Government want a small Committee because they are not sure of victory in that forum. The official record of the debate 85 years ago shows that the then Conservative Member of Parliament for Ashford put quite well the case for the Minister today. He said :

"The Members for Wales were generally of the opposite way of thinking to the Unionist Party"--

that is, the Conservative party, and things have not changed too much--

"and it would be impossible for a Unionist Government to entrust legislation to Grand Committees because no

Column 253

Government would consent to send legislation to Committees on which they were in a minority."-- [Official Report, 15 April 1907 ; Vol. 172, c. 671-720.]

That is why the Government wish to change the Standing Order--simply because they cannot guarantee success. Are the Government so unsure of the benefits to the bay? Are they so uncertain of the merits of the Bill that they cannot trust Welsh Members of Parliament to scrutinise the proposals? After all, that is what they are doing. The Second Reading debate, which judged the principles of the Bill, has long since gone. The Committee will deal with safeguards, protections and details, so all Welsh Members should be allowed to take part in the proceedings.

I am glad to see the Secretary of State present because during and before the general election, when he attacked the principle of the Welsh Assembly and devolution, he always said that one of the reasons why it was unnecessary to have a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff was that the procedures and the institutions of the House of Commons were such that they safeguarded the interests of Welsh people. He said that there was nothing better than Welsh Question Time, the setting up of the Welsh Grand Committee and the Welsh day debate. Yet, tonight, the Government want to take away one of the most important parts of the procedure that deals with Welsh business, which has been established for nearly a century. At the same time, however, the Government have conceded that Members representing Scotland should be allowed to deal with local matters in their way. We should be allowed to do the same.

Many of us feel great dismay and unease about the erosion of the democratic process in Wales. By the time of the next election, Wales will have been subjected to two decades of unwanted Tory rule, but in election after election--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he was quite clear about the meaning of the motion, but he now seems to be straying from it. Will he now address his remarks to the motion?

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will reflect carefully upon this debate, because it is no more than a gerrymander. The Tories cannot get their way with the current procedures, so they are changing them--gerrymandering them--to get their way. I think that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) were right and in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but he is challenging the Chair. If he wishes to catch my eye, I do not imagine that he will continue on that theme.

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that, on reflection, you will understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was not challenging your ruling in any way. I am also sure that my hon. Friend would not regard your latter comment as a threat. It is important to point out that the motion that we accepted at 10 pm allows for the debate to continue until the business is finished. There is no discretion resting in the Chair as to whether my hon. Friend speaks in the debate. I ask you to reflect carefully on your recent comments.

Column 254

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for about as long as me. He knows full well that many hon. Members wish to speak tonight. They all have to catch my eye and I must use my judgment. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier comment and I take it in the spirit in which it was made.

Mr. Murphy : The Government want to change the Standing Order and the nature of the way in which Welsh business is dealt with in the Chamber. Many of us believe that that is part of a general process by which the Welsh people have been deprived of their democratic rights. It is important that the proposed change is seen in the wider context of Welsh democracy.

In the next few months the Secretary of State will make great changes to local government in Wales with the result that we shall have fewer elected representatives than we have ever had. We must couple those changes and the motive behind tonight's debate with the fact that many non-elected public bodies in Wales are stuffed with the Secretary of State's placemen. Is it any wonder that Wales is fast becoming the least democratic nation in western Europe? The Government have the power to impose their will on the House and the Welsh people, but they certainly do not have the right. 10.38 pm

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : The motion is totally unacceptable to everyone in Wales who has any feeling for democracy in our country.

The Cardiff barrage is an eminently local issue. First and foremost, it deals with Cardiff, but it has implications for all of Wales because it has implications for the budget of the Welsh Office. Hon. Members representing all parts of Wales have the right to contribute to the arguments that must be pursued when the issue is dealt with in detail. The way in which we deal with Welsh legislation here, under Conservative Governments who have been in power for the last 13 years and who will run for at least another five, shows that it is not possible for us to achieve decisions in line with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East) : The hon. Gentleman refers to the Conservatives being in power for at least another five years. Is his arithmetic right?

Mr. Wigley : We do not know what the outcome will be at the next general election. Perhaps I should have said that the present Government have a maximum of five years, although one does not know how the rules will be changed-- [Interruption.] We can only imagine the course that the Government will pursue, considering that they are willing to change the rules in the respect we are discussing tonight, by which they are taking away rights that Welsh hon. Members have had since the beginning of this century.

It is not possible for Wales to expect democracy from this institution by virtue of the procedures that are being followed by the Government in this instance. It is not possible, within the institutions of the House of Commons or, for that matter, of the House of Lords-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Column 255

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats when I am standing. May we have a little more hush so that we can hear what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is saying?

Mr. Wigley : Clearly, we are all enjoying it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Rogers : The hon. Gentleman says that he has no faith in this House. Does he have more faith in the House of Lords, now that it is occupied by, among others, Lord Trawsfynydd B?

Mr. Wigley : When I think of the long row of former Labour Members, ex-Labour candidates and ex-Labour local government leaders in Wales who are in another place, I begin to wonder. Decisions that must be taken at central Government level, especially when legislation is involved, should be taken in line with the wishes of the people of Wales. To the extent that we do not have an all-Wales elected body in which such decisions can be taken, they must be taken through hon. Members here.

There are 38 constituencies in Wales. The Government returned after the last election with six Welsh seats, compared with eight at the 1987 election. Six out of 38 apparently gives them a mandate to rule. What we are seeing with tonight's proposal is the same sort of direction as we see in the context of the Welsh Grand Committee when we debate other issues. That Committee, which handles legislation of this sort when it is passed to it, cannot take any meaningful decisions. We can only report back that we have considered, say, health, education or housing in Wales.

We are not allowed to take a decision because in that body there is, of necessity, a majority of hon. Members who represent parties other than the Government. For the past 120 years we have witnessed in the political body of Wales a situation in which there has never been a majority of Conservative MPs. In some elections, not one Conservative Member has been returned. The 1905 election was a case in point, when Wales was overwhelmingly Liberal. Keir Hardie was then the first Labour Member.

Although there has never been a majority of Conservatives, for two thirds of that time we have been governed by Conservative Governments who have had no mandate from Wales and who have been totally out of line with the social and economic aspirations of the people of Wales.

We may have to suffer that as the price of being part of the United Kingdom. But for local decisions that do not affect any other part of the nation, why is it not possible for us to have a modicum of democracy so that the Welsh people can take decisions in line with the views of their elected representatives in this House? If it is not possible for the House to live with that small degree of rights for the people of Wales, is that not a reflection of the bankruptcy of this system of government in affording any sort of democracy to the people of Wales?

Although the message may not come home in this Government's term of office because they insist on their majority in the United Kingdom, sooner or later the message will come home that the only way for the people of Wales to take decisions on this and other issues that go further, in line with their values and aspirations, will be

Column 256

when we have our own state answerable to the Welsh people and our own Parliament in Cardiff and are not ruled by Conservative Governments in London.

10.45 pm

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham) : I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing your eye to catch me seeking to contribute to the debate! Sitting on the Government Benches is the Under-Secretary of State, who scraped by in the last general election with a majority of a few thousand ; next to him is the Minister of State, who got 30 per cent. of the vote two people voted against him for every person who voted for him ; and, on his left- hand side is the Secretary of State for Wales, who does not even represent a seat in the Principality. That sums up the state of the Conservative party today.

Mr. David Hanson (Delyn) : Does my hon. Friend agree that 23 Opposition Members elected in Wales, but only two Conservative Members from Wales, are in the Chamber? The Conservative party cannot even muster its four Back Benchers from Wales into the Chamber, yet the 23 Welsh Opposition Members who are interested in this matter are here. Where are the Conservatives?

Dr. Marek : My hon. Friend is right. It is amazing that Conservative Members with seats in Wales are not here, yet we see clearly that there is intense interest in this measure from Opposition Members and that there is a full house of Welsh Opposition Members.

The measure is nothing more than a gross gerrymander. It is worse than that, because the Government could have chosen a Committee with an odd number of members and they would then have had a majority of only one. But they have chosen a Committee with an even number of members, thus giving them a majority of two over all other parties. Naturally, the Committee's membership should reflect the membership of the House, so on a Committee of 20 they should not even have a majority of one. Therefore, they have not only been insulting to the people of Wales but have tried to achieve as large a majority in the House as they dare.

During the general election, 50 per cent. of people voted Labour and only 28 per cent. of the Welsh electorate voted Conservative. So the Government have no mandate whatever. They cannot get their Back Benchers from Wales to attend this debate and the Minister makes a perfunctory speech, trying to kid us that the motion is technical and that we should consider nothing but the technicalities. The motion is important because it shows the naked truth of Tory colonial government in the Principality. The Government know well that Welsh Members are intensely interested in what happens in our capital city. This was a private Bill about which the Government took no view either way. But behind the scenes, they wanted the Bill and they have now brought it forward as a Conservative party measure.

The measure may have had the support of hon. Members in Committee--I make no judgment about that. Some of us were against it and others were for it. Some hon. Members had qualms or reservations about parts of it and were prepared to see what we could do to get those parts changed, but were in favour of other parts of it.

Column 257

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is not discussing the Bill, is he ?

Dr. Marek : No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I wanted to be clear that the hon. Gentleman is discussing the motion on the Order Paper.

Dr. Marek : I am certainly doing so, and if I was not in order, I hope to be in order now.

There were Welsh Members who had different views on the Bill, about which they were knowledgeable and to which they wanted to contribute. The Bill might well have been passed ; I think that it would have been. But the Government have tabled today's motion, thus denying most of us the opportunity to contribute towards the government of Wales, and Cardiff, its capital city.

I very much regret that fact. I cannot do anything more about it, as we are governed by the rules of the House, but I hope that we will divide on the motion and that as many of my hon. Friends--whether they support or oppose the Bill--will vote with me. We must show clearly that the motion is a manifestation of the jackboot tactics of the Conservative Government who have no roots or representation within the Principality and are foisting their will on Wales and its representatives, who are Opposition Members, as its representatives have been for the past 60, 70 and 80 years.

If the Government have a shred of integrity, they should rethink, withdraw the motion and consult through the usual channels to see whether agreement can be obtained so that we have a meaningful Committee. Its members should not be English Members of Parliament--probably sitting in south-east constituencies--with one qualification : no interest in Cardiff bay, the barrage or the Bill. Hon. Members who are interested in the Cardiff bay barrage should be able to participate in the debate in Committee. I think that that is the earnest wish of Opposition Members, and I hope that the Government will consider the position carefully before we vote on the motion.

10.52 pm

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : Since 1282 Wales has had-- [Interruption.] I thought that that might raise a cheer from immediately behind me. I shall start again : since 1282 Wales has had few distinctive constitutional rights. Tonight the Government have challenged one of those few remaining rights.

Of course, the Government have the perfect right to table the motion, and to seek to have a Committee that includes Members from outside Wales and does not reflect the political balance in Wales. But my understanding is that this is the first time, at least in modern times, that the Government have sought to force through such a motion. As the Minister said, in the past such motions have been passed, but I believe that they have been passed as a result of agreement through the usual channels. Therefore, tonight there has been an important constitutional departure for Wales, and with it a diminution of the constitutional rights of the Welsh people. It is not important if uncontroversial Bills are discussed in Standing Committees that do not reflect the political balance of Wales. But when considering a controversial

Next Section

Home Page