Mr.
Murphy: There were negotiations not just between the
United Kingdom and Welsh Assembly Governments but with the Scottish and
Northern Ireland Executives because this has an impact on all three
devolved nations. I understand that those issues are now resolved, but
I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr.
Roger Williams: I may be wrong on this point but I
understand that the Bill, in terms of the coastal path, relates only to
England, and that the Welsh Assembly already has powers and intends to
use them in an entirely different manner.
Mr.
Murphy: I will have to look into that issue and my hon.
Friend the Under-Secretary will respond to that point
later. Albert
Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): This is an important issue
and although I very much support devolution, I have concerns that
different parts of the United Kingdom will have different rules and
regulations on coastal access. The coast is a great tourist attraction
in Wales. Will there be uniformity across the United Kingdom so that
the tourism industries in Wales and other parts have a level playing
field on which to conduct their business? This is an important area
that needs to be dealt with here before powers are given to other parts
of the United
Kingdom.
Mr.
Murphy: There has, quite rightly, been prolonged
negotiation because of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised about
who does what in and around our waters, but I think that we have come
up with a very
good result. The Bill was introduced in the other place on 4 December
and is currently with the House of Lords Committee. My hon. Friend and
other colleagues will have an opportunity to discuss the Bill in more
detail when it comes to this place, but I think that the result was a
good one. It does away with any uncertainty about who does what with
our
coast. Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): That is
obviously an important Bill for England and Wales. During his
discussions on the Bill with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly and the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will the Minister
bear it in mind that one of the most difficult issues is dredging for
scallops by large boats? The dredgers effectively scour the sea bed and
ruin it for 12 to 14 years at a time. That will have to be
severely limited if we are to have a realistic prospect of achieving
the Bill’s
aims.
Mr.
Murphy: I am looking at the details of that, and it is
proposed to extend the area of the Welsh fisheries zone from what is
now 12 nautical miles to a mid-point between Wales and Ireland. The
hon. Gentleman’s points about dredging and the scallop industry
will be taken into account by our colleagues in Cardiff, who will have
joint responsibility for those issues with the United Kingdom
Government. The relevant Secretary of State and the relevant Minister
in the devolved Assembly will look at marine planning and come up with
a sensible answer.
The other
Bill is the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction
Bill, which relates to the governance of local authorities in Wales.
Those are the two Bills with framework powers but in addition we, in
this Parliament, have our own legislative programme for Wales through
the legislative competence orders. So far, Parliament has approved
three: the Additional Learning Needs Order, the Vulnerable Children
Order and the Domiciliary Care Order. They give extra powers to our
colleagues in the Assembly and will improve the lives of our
constituents in various ways. We will shortly be bringing the Housing
Order before Parliament. The Welsh Affairs Committee is dealing with
the Red Meat Industries Order, and pre-legislative scrutiny has started
on the Carers Order. Discussions on the Environment and the Welsh
Language Orders are in their final stages and I hope to be able to
bring those forward for pre-legislative scrutiny within the next few
weeks.
Mrs.
Gillan: This morning I was reading the speech that the
Minister made in the Welsh Assembly on the Queen’s Speech. He
gave more information to Assembly Members about the progress of
legislative competence orders, which appeared to be being handed out to
Labour Assembly Members in the Assembly. Has he thought about how he
could improve communication with Assembly Members and give them more
details of the timetable, which seems difficult to obtain within the
Assembly
itself?
Mr.
Murphy: I am very flattered that the hon. Lady reads my
speeches so early in the morning. I have great difficulty reading them
myself—certainly late at night.
Her friends in the Assembly were making the same point about
communication. How the Welsh Assembly Government communicates with
Assembly Members is, of course, a matter entirely for the politicians
in Cardiff bay. All I know is that it is important for us to keep as up
to date as possible on the issues. She will be interested to know that
it is a matter of days and weeks before both orders are in the public
domain, and I hope to say something about that
later.
Alun
Michael: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that
legislative competence orders are dealt with very efficiently? That is
so particularly because of the efforts made by the Chairman of that
Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, who has been keen to
liaise with Ministers both here and in the Assembly, and with Chairs of
Committees to ensure that the process runs smoothly. My right hon.
Friend’s confirmation of that will be helpful given that one or
two people—very few—want to create mischief by not
recognising the efficiency with which the process has been developing
over the past
year.
Mr.
Murphy: My right hon. Friend has stolen my thunder; in two
paragraphs’ time my brief
reads: “I
would like to pay particular tribute to the work of my Hon Friend, the
Member for Aberavon, and his
Committee”— of
which my right hon. Friend is a
member— during
the past
session.” David
Rosser, director of CBI Wales, writes in this morning’s
Western Mail about how European legislation is passed and says
that by comparison the LCO process is as simple as pie. Perhaps we
ought to realise that these are early days and I would be the first to
say that it is not a simple process for the ordinary observer, but
neither is the process for passing legislation in this Parliament.
Doubtless people were saying the same about how complicated our
processes were as we moved over the past 100 or 200 years towards the
processes we have now. The importance of it all is that, yes, we
certainly have to make it more efficient, and the work of the Welsh
Affairs Committee is going along those lines. We have to ensure that it
is quicker. However, we must not dilute the nature of the scrutiny of
the Welsh Affairs Committee and the House of Commons with regard to the
legislative competence
order.
Mr.
Touhig: My right hon. Friend mentioned the language
legislative competence order. We look forward to its publication
because it will be immensely important and interesting to Wales. As it
could be quite controversial, can he assure us that there will be the
widest possible consultation with business, industry and—to use
a new Labour term—all stakeholders in Wales so that, if it is to
go forward, we can be certain that it does so with the support of the
people of Wales and not without it?
Mr.
Murphy: I am not quite convinced that my right hon. Friend
is right to associate “stakeholder” with new Labour, but
I know what he means. I can reassure him and members of the Committee
that it is not in anyone’s interest not to have decent
consultation on any order, let alone the one under discussion, perhaps
not so much in terms of the language, but in terms of business at
difficult times. The order is important, and we and the
Welsh Assembly Government have been working closely on it. We are
quickly coming to a stage when the details of the draft order should be
in the public domain so that people in Wales, particularly those in
business, as well as others with an interest in such matters, are
consulted. The role of the Welsh Affairs Committee in that regard is
hugely important because members of that Committee will want to examine
the order closely and speak to people from all walks of life in Wales
to obtain their views on its
content.
Mr.
David Jones: The Secretary of State has mentioned at
length the importance of scrutiny by the Welsh Affairs Committee. Does
he therefore share my view that there is no convention—nor
should there ever be—that legislative competence orders should
simply act as a rubber-stamping process, and does he agree that it is
not the case that whatever the Assembly calls for should, of necessity,
be granted by this
place?
Mr.
Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nothing
should be rubber-stamped. We should always ensure that we reach
agreement with the Welsh Assembly Government on such issues. However,
at the end of the day, this Parliament is passing on new powers to the
Welsh Assembly so that process should be proper and should be
scrutinised by members of the Welsh Affairs Committee, including the
hon.
Gentleman. I
am still not completely satisfied that we cannot make even more
improvements to the process, and I propose to examine matters again in
the next few months. I hope that all members of the Committee,
particularly those who lead political parties and speak for Wales in
this Parliament, will take part in the process. There have been
improvements over the past months, but we can continue to seek
them.
Mr.
Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree
that although there has been a lot of excitement among the chattering
classes, such as on BBC Wales and in the Western Mail, about the
alleged complexities of the legislative competence order process, the
truth is that, if it is complex, it is no more complex than our
legislative process here? How many average voters understand our
tortuous legislative process, such as First Reading, which is not
actually a reading but a publication of a Bill; Second Reading, which
is not a reading either, but a debate; and Committee stage, which is
often impenetrable in its complexity to anyone passing by? We need to
recognise that the process is new and that it is, as my right hon.
Friend says, bedding down. It is proving to be highly successful. On
average, it is giving the Welsh Assembly Government three times the
legislative powers each year that they have had under the old process
and we should make it work
better.
Mr.
Murphy: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, who
went to great lengths to ensure that the process was proper, received
good scrutiny and delivered new powers for the Welsh Assembly. He was
right to draw attention to the Committee stage of a Bill. If English
speakers from another country listened to discussions on a Bill in
Committee, they would think that those involved had come from Mars and
were talking gobbledegook. Doubtless, people do sometimes, but
generally the procedure is so complex that work on legislative
competence orders pales into insignificance
by way of complexity. He is absolutely right. People over-egg the
pudding. It is important for us to concentrate on the fact that we do
not lose an opportunity to improve the efficiency of the process,
including the matter of time, because obviously we do not want logjams
in Cardiff or
here.
Lembit
Öpik: I seek to rescue the Secretary of State from
process and return him to content. I draw his attention to the
environmental legislation that can be devolved. Does he anticipate
additional powers being given to local people—for instance,
those who are concerned about wind farm developments? For example, the
people living in a settlement called Ceri in my area simply do not have
the legislative means to have their concerns heard on the environmental
cost of the expansion of wind turbines. Have the Government given some
thought to trying to rebalance that concern, giving local citizens a
real voice to push back, for instance, when they feel that the cost of
cabling for new wind farm developments will exceed the benefits of the
meagre energy output that those turbines are likely to
give?
Mr.
Murphy: It is important that local people have a real say
in what happens in terms of planning permission for various projects,
particularly in rural areas. I take the point made by the hon.
Gentleman, but he will have to wait for the detail of the order. It
will not be long before it comes to this place.
Finally, I
refer to the debate that was raging last week on our role as Members of
Parliament in dealing with Welsh business—and, indeed, on
whether we should have a role as Welsh Members of Parliament. There are
one or two issues that I want to mention in respect of the debate on
whether we, as Welsh MPs, take a proper place in scrutinising
legislation, playing our part in the legislative process and therefore
in debating the Queen’s Speech.
First, there
is a strong case for Welsh Members of Parliament being treated as
Members of a United Kingdom Parliament. I do not believe that we should
be treated as second-class MPs because we happen to represent Welsh
constituencies.
Secondly,
I have written to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who has
kindly replied. She will soon be able to speak on the matter, but the
reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament—perhaps
from 40 to 30; I do not know—is absolutely the wrong thing to do
at this time, if, indeed, at any time. There is and has been a case for
doing so in Scotland, because Scotland has a full legislative Assembly.
Indeed, Scottish Members of Parliament were more numerous than Welsh
MPs. It would merely diminish the influence of Welsh people in the
House of Commons, were we to reduce the number of Welsh MPs.
I also make
the important point that, as we all realise, it is not geographically
simple to reduce the number of Members. First, there would have to be
very large rural constituencies; they may not have many people in them
but MPs would have to cover literally thousands of square miles.
Secondly, our Welsh valley communities are unique. They would therefore
each need a Member of Parliament and a local authority properly to
represent them. I am glad that the hon. Lady has written to me to
indicate that her leader’s proposals, which were published last
week, will not be put in place in Wales.
Mrs.
Gillan: I think that the Secretary of State is being
disingenuous, both with the letter that he wrote to me and in failing
to reveal what I said in my reply. As the right hon. Gentleman knows,
the Committee on Standards in Public Life has recommended a cut in the
number of MPs across the United Kingdom, and the Liberal Democrats have
announced that they wish to cut the number of MPs by 150. The leader of
my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr.
Cameron), was reflecting on what was said by the Committee on Standards
in Public Life. In the letter that I wrote back to the Secretary of
State, I specifically said that the special circumstances that pertain
to Wales will, of course, continue to do so. I hope that I have
dispelled those doubts that the Secretary of State sought to raise
again today and with which he has tried to play
mischief.
Mr.
Murphy: I am not being disingenuous. I have reached that
part of my speech in which I cite the hon. Lady’s letter to me.
It says
that “any
proposals would respect the current special arrangements for
Wales.” I
have no doubt that the hon. Lady believes that to be the case. What we
doubt, however, is whether her leader believes that. If we think about
the Conservative party’s policy on devolution, which is a
non-policy at the moment, one wonders whether it has got its act
together on this. Nevertheless, it is a good answer in that when, at
any time in the distant future, there might be a Conservative
Government, they would not tamper with the issue of Welsh
MPs.
| 
