Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 299)
TUESDAY 30 MARCH 1999
MR MARTYN
JONES, MP,
DR JULIAN
LEWIS, MP,
MR RICHARD
LIVSEY, CBE,
MP and MR
ELFYN LLWYD,
MP
280. But the temptation would be there?
(Mr Jones) Given, Sir Paul, that the agenda is
set by Government and that Government have to answer to their
own agenda, if you like, then there might be temptation from the
Government's point of view, if they wanted to air something, but
generally I find that Governments tend not to want to put themselves
up to be knocked down, so I suspect that probably it would not
be used.
Mr Darvill
281. I agree that if the Main Committee
proposals are advanced and they come into effect, at the same
time as the devolution in Wales, with a modernised role for the
Welsh Affairs Select Committee, would not that be a model that
would be appropriate, and, therefore, effectively, do away with
the need for the Grand Committee?
(Mr Jones) I tend to agree with you, Mr Darvill,
but I am not so draconian that necessarily it would have to be
wound up. My personal view, having experienced both the Welsh
Grand Committee and the Welsh Select Committee, not in the chair
of both, is that I feel that the Welsh Grand Committee does tend
to duplicate what an Assembly ought to be doing with increased
powers, and that is discussing matters pertaining to the whole
of Wales. However, as I said, there are a lot of committees in
this House which never meet but occasionally do get resurrected
when things are ...
282. Yes, but if we are modernising Parliament
and the role of Parliament and producing a devolved Assembly,
we have got a clear set of areas of responsibility, if you like,
and by keeping the Grand Committee you are just really maintaining
a part of the old system, and if it really became necessary to
bring back the Grand Committee, because there were obvious areas
which were not being covered because the Grand Committee went,
then it would always be possible for the House to revert to it.
It seems to me that, at this stage, it would be a good idea to
have this package there which you will be working to, rather than
leaving this on the back shelf, just to be brought out at some
time that is convenient.
(Mr Jones) I personally would not disagree with
you, Mr Darvill, but some of my colleagues might.
(Mr Livsey) This is a very subjective argument,
if you do not mind my saying so, but I do not think we ought to
buy it, because, at the end of the day, I think there could be
a measure of some frustration in the Welsh Assembly that they
do not have primary legislative powers, and it may be that the
Welsh Grand, although it may not be active for some time, may
have to be resorted to, to discuss some of these matters with
the whole of the membership of the Welsh Westminster MPs here,
in order perhaps to resolve one or two problems that might arise.
Chairman
283. Could I just help our witnesses, and
Mr Stunell might care to add to this. Members that are before
us this afternoon may well be aware that the Modernisation Select
Committee has agreed on a proposal that there should be sittings
of the House in Westminster Hall, i.e. a parallel chamber, and
it is possible that matters that are of interest to devolved parts
of the United Kingdom could well be debated in sittings in Westminster
Hall. Now it is not for me, as Chairman of Procedure, to indicate
when or how the Government may find time to debate the findings
of the Modernisation Select Committee, or, in due course, and
probably sooner than later, the interim report from this Committee
dealing with these sorts of issues; but what I do say is, there
could well be alternative facilities for the sort of debate which
Mr Livsey is talking about. Do you want to add; sorry, I intervened
there, Richard?
(Mr Livsey) No. I think that is quite a helpful
comment, which no doubt we would want to think about and mull
over in our own minds, and perhaps respond to later on. But where
I would like to draw a distinction, if I were a Scottish MP, sitting
here, I think I would be very clear about the role of the Scottish
Grand Committee, I could not see any function for it, because
it has got primary legislative powers in the Scottish Parliament,
but we are in a different situation and I do not think we want
to jump off the deep end immediately.
(Mr Llwyd) Two very brief points. Firstly, if
I could remind myself about the purpose of the Grand Committee.
Very often, it is a valued opportunity for backbenchers to be
able to make their comments and to speak on various Welsh issues;
and, secondly, of course, referring to what I said earlier, the
Grand Committee, and the Standing Orders, is able to sit as a
Second Reading forum, and I think it is rather important that
that should be kept, pro tem, at least. I hear what you
say, Mr Darvill, about modernisation and I am not against modernisation,
I think there is a great need for it, but I think that it would
be preferable to keep this particular institution in being, for
the time being, just to see how things do evolve. I may be wrong,
but I think, rather than bring it to a head now and then possibly
have to reinstate, it might be better to see what use will be
made of it, two, three years hence, and then decide. It sounds
like sitting on the fence, but it is not meant to sound like that.
Mr Davey
284. I am intrigued to see that there is
this dispute amongst the members of your Committee, because I
would have thought that most of you were very keen on the devolution
processes that have been set in train and would not really want
to leave something that could be gone back to, and really would
want to put pressure on future Governments to give more power
to the Welsh Assembly, and, therefore, to create a dynamic for
further evolutionary change and further powers for this Welsh
Assembly, to create a force, an incentive, to give more power
to the Welsh Assembly. Has not that been an issue amongst your
members?
(Mr Jones) If I can respond first; it has not,
Mr Davey, at all, and it is not the case that we are all very
pro-devolution. I certainly am, and I think that two of my colleagues
here are, but I think there is a distinct split, but I do not
think that is the motivation for wanting to keep the Grand Committee
on the back burner, if you like. I think it is simply a question
of, because our situation is different from Scotland, that we
want to maintain everything that might possibly be useful. That
is, I think, the feeling, if I am right; my colleagues may disagree
with me.
Mr Burgon
285. What do you see as being the role of
Welsh MPs at Westminster after devolution, and do you see it as
differing from that of English, Scottish or Northern Ireland MPs,
and, if so, how?
(Mr Jones) That is an interesting question. I
do not think it will differ significantly. All MPs, after devolution,
will still have social security, defence, foreign affairs, and
all the other non-devolved matters to deal with, and it is the
case at the moment that most Welsh MPs, I am not saying are primarily
concerned with matters Welsh, but we all tend to attend Welsh
debates, and so on; so, to that extent, it might be a little easier.
But I think we will still have the overall role, we are still
a UK Parliament, and most of us are happy with the level of devolution
that we have got. To distinguish between the role between Welsh,
because I have no remit for Scottish MPs, but Welsh and English
Members, I suspect that the English Members may want to have their
own regional assemblies in the future, and I think, my personal
view is, that that is not a bad thing, and that may be something
which we will shine a beacon for, for English Members to have
their own regional assemblies.
Chairman
286. Are you equating, Mr Jones, the devolved
Assembly in Wales with regional government?
(Mr Jones) Indeed, yes. I think it is a form of
regional government, it is a form of devolution; devolution, in
my definition, is taking government down as close to the people
as possible, and I think we are starting that process in Wales,
and I cannot see any reason why it should not happen in England
as well.
Sir Paul Beresford
287. Regardless of whether regionalism actually
does strike in England, so to speak, there will be a period of
time when there will not be, so what about the difference in relationship
between the English and Welsh MPs in the interim?
(Mr Jones) I think the nature of this place is
that there is constant change, even in the 11 years I have been
here, that we all have our roles to play; for instance, I am Chairman
of the All-Party Group on Population and Development, which is
an international role, those roles will continue. In a sense,
as I said, really, our role will probably be more similar to the
English Members' role now, in that probably we will not have the
Welsh Grand Committee to attend, we will not have so many Welsh
debates to attend, and so on, or maybe any, it is up to your Committee
here, but we may not have Welsh Questions, for example, or a reduced
version of Welsh Questions. So, in a sense, our role will be getting
much more like the role of English Members is at present.
(Dr Lewis) I just wonder if people with longer
experience than I have anything to tell us about what happened
in the 1970s, with what I recall were called the Redcliffe Maude
reforms, which inserted quite a powerful tier of intermediate
government between local government and Westminster but without
any power for primary legislation, and, I suspect, at the time,
it was never thought that this should lead to any change or diminution
in the role of MPs at Westminster with that arrangement. And,
although I do not want to press the parallel too far, I suggest
that the same arguments that applied against any change in the
role of MPs then might well do so now, because of the very limited
degree of devolution that applies in the case of Wales, rather
than Scotland.
(Mr Llwyd) I think, Mr Chairman, it is unarguable
that the constituency caseloads of Welsh MPs will decrease, that
is pretty obvious, I do not think anybody could argue sensibly
against that; however, I think that the actual role in Westminster
will not necessarily decrease, that is my view.
Chairman
288. Thank you. Can I put another question
from the Chair. I gauge, from what has been said, and I hope I
am correct, that you are concerned about the future remit of your
Committee, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. Given that the
Secretary of State will be responsible for representing Wales's
interests in the Cabinet, why would it not be sensible to make
the Committee's remit the responsibility of the Secretary of State
for Wales, and, if the remit is the responsibility of the Secretary
of State, will it change automatically with changes in the powers
of the Assembly; if so, is not that a good thing?
(Mr Jones) I think there is a problem with that,
and the problem is that the Secretary of State, as I think I intimated
in my preamble, he, or she, will be in a very weak position in
the Cabinet. If the widest possible interpretation was made of
the Secretary of State's ongoing role then I think there would
be a role for the Committee which is not too different from that
which I described in the beginning; on the other hand, there is
a danger that the narrow role of the Secretary of State might
be considered to be our role, as a Committee, in terms of scrutiny,
and that would be, I think, a very big mistake, in that we would
have such a narrow role that probably it would not be worth us
continuing.
Chairman: Again to
interrupt, Mr Jones, but it would be the responsibilities that
lie in this place for Wales, would it not? Are you saying that,
as a Welsh Select Committee, you will need to go beyond what remains
of the very heavy responsibility in this House for the people
and the interests of Wales, as a country?
Mr Stunell
289. I wonder if I can add a supplementary.
It does seem to me that, by seeking a wider remit, what you are
actually saying is you want the opportunity to second-guess what
the Assembly is doing, and I wonder if you could just comment
on that?
(Mr Jones) I am glad you raised that, Mr Stunell,
because that is absolutely what we do not want, I think the majority
of us, in any case, on the Committee; we cannot see a role for
second-guessing what an elected tier of government are doing,
it will be entirely up to them, they will have been elected by
the people of Wales to have that role of scrutiny, that is what
they are there for. That is not the point at all. The point I
am trying to make, and maybe not very well, in terms of a wider
role, is that, precisely because the Assembly will have its own
scrutiny role but it will not have the opportunity to legislate,
there is necessity, I believe, for an all-party group, such as
ourselves, or something very similar, to continue in this place,
to be able to take evidence from Assembly people, which a Standing
Committee of the legislature would not be able to do, they will
be able to take evidence from bodies throughout Wales about legislation
that the Assembly would require, and, equally, they would be able
to take evidence from other groups outside Wales where there is
any legislation planned which is going to affect Wales. So I want
to keep focusing on that, because I think that is very important.
Chairman
290. Yes, but you seem to be getting away
from the point that I put, I know it was added to by Andrew Stunell,
that if there is going to be any legislation in this House relating
to Wales it is going to be initiated by the Secretary of State
for Wales. So where am I wrong in suggesting that the remit of
your Select Committee should be that of the Secretary of State
for Wales?
(Mr Livsey) Can I challenge you, I do not like
challenging you, Mr Chairman, but I think I must, on that issue;
it need not necessarily be that it is the Secretary of State for
Wales who is actually initiating the legislation. For example,
we could have environmental legislation emanating from this place
which might affect us in Wales, in all sorts of ways, which, as
a Committee, perhaps, we need to examine; on the other hand, on
the other side of the coin, we could have a situation, for example,
where perhaps the Barnett Formula was being renegotiated, and
we would take, obviously, a very keen interest in that sort of
issue, and that is coming straight from the Treasury. So I think
there are a lot of different issues that perhaps we have to consider
here.
Chairman: I am very
grateful for that correction, I stand corrected, but I actually
asked the question to be provocative and I succeeded. Sir Paul.
Sir Paul Beresford
291. Can I just quickly follow the point.
Any legislation that involves England and Wales, for example,
at the Standing Committee stage, has a Welsh Minister there; so
part of your argument falls?
(Mr Livsey) Mr Chairman, and Sir Paul, that is
an argument which I think can perhaps be challenged; yes, putatively,
that might be the case, that there is a Minister there. But, for
example, we have at the moment legislation going through the House
on the modernisation of local government, which actually affects
Wales; are we saying that perhaps this Committee should not take
an interest in that sort of topic, as well as the Minister?
292. No, I am looking at it the other way
round. The Chairman's suggestion, I felt, covered the point, because
the Secretary of State for Wales would have a representative,
in the form of the Minister, at the legislative stage?
(Mr Livsey) That might be the case, from the point
of view of the Government, but I think the role of Select Committees
is somewhat different from that, where we need the freedom, in
fact, to examine what is going on, objectively.
(Dr Lewis) My initial response was going to be
the same as Mr Livsey's. If it is recognised that Wales, as an
entity, has a degree of special consideration, then when national
government is taking steps, in many fields, that the Welsh Assembly,
as it were, will not get its hands on, before it has already gone
a long way down the chain, then it is a reduction in the input
of representativeness for the people of Wales to have this Committee
not functioning. To that I would add one other little thing, as
a relatively new member of the Committee; one of the things that
has struck me as one of its major strengths is an ability to take
a slightly detached view of individual cases where something has
gone wrong. In recent times, for example, we have examined the
closure of a museum, the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum,
under the aegis of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, which
had in its terms of reference the propagation of Cardiff as a
city with a strong maritime history. Now I do not want to be too
provocative in what I am going to say, but I think the fact that
we could look at that problem in an isolated way from a distance
was helpful, in terms of cutting through perhaps some of the interlocking
relationships that would come across, time and time again, if
everything were to be focused in Cardiff. I do not think I ought
to go further than that.
(Mr Llwyd) May I just come back on one thing that
Sir Paul said, I might have got the argument wrong, but, surely,
if there is a Minister present in the Standing Committee of a
Bill which affects Wales, should we, as a Committee, therefore,
not be there to be able to scrutiny what that Minister did or
did not, in the interests of Wales?
293. Yes, that was actually what I was trying
to say, that I felt that the remit of the Secretary of State is
broad, and broad enough to give a label for the Select Committee
to use.
(Mr Llwyd) I agree.
Mr Efford
294. I wonder if you have had an opportunity
to give any thought to the future co-operation between members
of the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Assembly? One of the examples
that we have been given is that of the federal government in Australia,
that has joint committees with the state parliaments. What future
co-operation do you envisage, formal or otherwise, between members
of the two bodies?
(Mr Jones) I would see, Chairman, that we would
have a liaison role, in any case, almost by definition, because
of the need to, not to second-guess what they are doing, as an
Assembly, but to help in the process of evolution of the Assembly.
I think our feeling at the moment is that it is very likely that
we would start off with informal meetings, except in the case
where, if we do have a pre-legislative role then we would want
to invite formally Members of the Assembly, in terms of the First
Secretary of whichever committee was responsible, or, whichever
committee wanted a particular form of legislation, they would
have to come and, if you like, give evidence to the committee,
but I am sure that they would be more than happy to come and give
evidence, in that formal sense. But I think it would be very important
for us, as a Committee, or for a territorial committee, if that
was the route that it was decided to go down, if they actually
had liaison committees, or informal meetings on a regular basis.
The problem then comes, who decides to call those meetings; it
is easy when it is formal, it is more difficult when it is informal.
But I would suspect that they would occur, almost naturally, as
a necessity.
Chairman
295. Why did you throw in just now the phrase
"territorial committee"?
(Mr Jones) Because, as I understand it, the Study
of Parliament Group have given you evidence, Chairman, suggesting
that there might be something called, I think they call it, a
territorial committee, and I threw that in really because, in
a sense, our role, as a Welsh Affairs Select Committee, would
change so much that we would not be examining the Welsh Office,
because the Welsh Office would not exist, we think that we ought
to be examining other Departments, Ministers, if they are affecting
Wales, for example. We think that, even if the Secretary of State
is our only recourse, as you suggested, I think, provocatively,
earlier, Mr Chairman, even if that is our only recourse, it will
be a wide interpretation anyway, as I think Sir Paul just mentioned,
that we would have to take a wider interpretation to get any useful
benefit for the Assembly and for Westminster.
296. You are not suggesting, and maybe I
missed something a few moments ago, that there should be a Welsh
Affairs Select Committee and a territorial committee?
(Mr Jones) No, Chairman.
297. You would be prepared yourselves to
assume the mantle of the territorial committee?
(Mr Jones) I think, Chairman, that that would
be the de facto case, because if we had followed the line
of the Study of Parliament Group, and the Welsh Grand Committee
was amalgamated with the Select Committee, effectively, what you
would be creating would be a Select Committee, because, the Welsh
Grand Committee, you could not have a committee of 52 people,
some of whom were the same individuals, in any case. So it would
have to be smaller, it would have to have a secretariat, well,
we are smaller and we have a secretariat, so I think that, essentially,
whatever we decide to call it, that is what we are discussing.
298. But would you respond to my remarks
earlier to Mr Richard Livsey, that, should a sittings chamber
in Westminster Hall come into being, certain territorial matters
relating to Wales, in the broadest sense, could be debated there,
not scrutinised there but could be debated there; are you in agreement
with that, do you think that is a good idea?
(Mr Jones) Certainly, I do; we have not discussed
this as a Committee, Chairman, but, as an individual who is concerned
about this issue, I would think that would be an excellent idea,
in terms of debate, in terms of a Second Reading style debate
for legislation pertaining to Wales, for example, that would make
sense. But I think you made the distinction yourself, in terms
of scrutiny and in terms of debate, and I think that we need the
Welsh Select Committee, whatever it is called, to continue to
have that scrutiny.
(Mr Llwyd) Mr Chairman, can I come back, very
briefly, on this point. Does not what you have just said, Mr Chairman,
about the initiation of a second chamber, make the case for retention
of the Welsh Grand?
299. I am not sure that the questioning
should come from you.
(Mr Llwyd) I am afraid, in my day job, I am paid
for asking questions.
Chairman: The answer
to that is, no, I do not. Could it be a justification, yes; do
I think that it is a justification, the answer is no. But that
is my brief answer. Andrew Stunell.
|
