The proceedings are
reported in the language in which they were spoken in the
committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied
corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the
transcript.
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 14:30.
The meeting began at 14:30.
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
[1]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Welcome—good afternoon—to
this session of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs
Committee. You are very welcome this afternoon, Lord Murphy.
It’s great to have you here with us this very first session
of our latest inquiry, which we’ve been anticipating greatly.
So, I hope you enjoy the afternoon. We’re looking forward to
hearing from you, not least because you’ve been in pole
position, not only on the two occasions when you’ve been
Secretary of State for Wales, of course, but also as a Cabinet
Member in different roles, and also as a long-time serving Member
of Parliament, and now in the House of Lords.
|
Ymchwiliad Llais
Cryfach i Gymru: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 1 A Stronger Voice
for Wales Inquiry: Evidence Session 1
|
[2]
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thought it might be worthwhile just
sketching what we’re trying to do, because we’re
looking back down that long tunnel of devolution since the very
first Government of Wales Act, and trying to look at, in effect,
what has worked well, what doesn’t work so well, not only in
constitutional matters, but also in policy areas as well, which I
know you were heavily involved with., the issues of cross-border
issues, thematic issues, how that works when it does, and, when it
fails to work, why does it fail. It’s particularly
interesting, of course, as we look forward from here, as well. But
I wonder, in starting this very first session, perhaps, if I could
ask you what your thoughts are looking back on your two periods as
Secretary of State for Wales, what your reflections were on those
two periods, and whether you saw a difference, as well, between the
two spells that you had as the Secretary of State for Wales. So,
what are your reflections?
|
[3]
Lord Murphy: Do I have to press anything or is it
automatic?
|
[4]
Huw Irranca-Davies: No, it will pick you up
automatically.
|
[5]
Lord Murphy: Well, Chair, Members—and that’s the
last time I’m going to say that, because I think we know each
other so well that, if you don’t mind, we’ll use our
Christian names. But what are the reflections on the two periods?
Well, the first one was in 1999, when I started, and the second one
was 2007. So, there’s a long period in between, and the
difference, I think, was enormous. Because, obviously, in 1999 the
Assembly hadn’t been going for long, really, had it? A couple
of years, at the most, in terms of getting used to what Members had
to do. I came at a rather tumultuous time, as you know, when there
was a significant change in terms of the First Minister. I never
quite thought I’d end up in what were, as I say, tumultuous
and dramatic times. But, of course, the Assembly and the Welsh
Executive, at that stage, was it, would it have been
called—was in the process of coming to terms with their
identity and what Government in Wales was all about. So, it was
very much at the early learning stages for everybody, not just
Members of the Assembly—members of the Welsh Government, as
it became—but also us, who were Welsh MPs and Ministers,
having to deal with the Assembly.
|
[6]
By the time I’d returned in 2007, obviously the First
Minister was the same, some of the Ministers were the same, and a
good number of the Members of the Assembly were the same. But there
was a world of difference, it seems to me, in terms of how, even in
those relatively short number of years, the Assembly had matured,
if you like—I don’t say that in any patronising way, I
say it in a constitutional sense. It got more used to itself, and
understood how to deal with the issues that they were charged to
deal with, and I think probably, most importantly, the people of
Wales themselves, by then, were getting used to the concept of a
different form of Government in Wales.
|
[7]
Certainly, when the Assembly started—I can speak now as a
Member of Parliament, rather than a Minister—it took a long
time for my former constituents to get used to the idea that
certain things were done by the Assembly, certain things were done
by the United Kingdom Government and by Parliament. But, by 2007,
it had changed dramatically, and I could see that difference in
those intervening years.
|
[8]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Did you find there was any difference
between those two periods in the relationship with Whitehall as
well, between the Wales Office and Whitehall? As you say, the first
period when you arrived was tumultuous, but it was also the very
beginning—the inception of the institution here in Wales. Was
there a difference in how the relationship between the Wales Office
and other Whitehall departments had changed as well?
|
[9]
Lord Murphy: A bit. You know yourself, since you served with
me in the Wales Office in the second period, that it’s
wasn’t always plain sailing and that ultimately I think it
took—and has taken—Whitehall much longer to get used to
the idea of devolution than the devolved Parliament and Government
in Wales. So, I wouldn’t say that there was a dramatic change
for the better there, and that my role in terms of acquainting
other Government departments and other Cabinet Ministers about the
need to understand that things happen differently the other side of
Offa’s Dyke hadn’t changed dramatically.
|
[10]
Huw Irranca-Davies: It’s fascinating that your
observation was about how devolution had evolved here—quite
understandably, a new institution had started to flex its muscles,
understand what powers it had, grow in confidence—and yet
within the Whitehall departments, you’re suggesting that, in
effect, very little had changed and the battle still had to be
fought.
|
[11]
Lord Murphy: I think, overall, little had changed. There may
have been individual departments that had more to do with Wales
that may have got better—put it that way. But I think,
generally speaking—. That’s why I’ve always
maintained, by the way, that the role of Secretary of State for
Wales is hugely important. English newspapers, London-based
newspapers, usually say, ‘Let’s do away with it’,
and I can understand the superficial logic of that, but I do think
there’s a need for this linkage between somebody in
Whitehall—perhaps it’s not the Secretary of State for
Wales; perhaps it’s an overall—but nevertheless that
someone is there centrally to keep on reminding other Government
Ministers and departments that there are 11 million people in the
United Kingdom who do not live under the domestic regime of
England, and I think that’s a hugely significant role of the
Secretary of State and the Ministers, but it’s always a
difficult one, it seems to me.
|
[12]
Huw Irranca-Davies: You’ve been quite outspoken on
this previously, and quite frank in your observations on the
relationship between other Whitehall departments and the Wales
Office. I recall at one point, you suggested of the Whitehall
departments that
|
[13]
‘They rarely want to give anything away and there needs to be
a central power with the Welsh Secretary, but with the help of the
Prime Minister’,
|
[14]
which seems to be key as well,
|
[15]
‘to ensure that those grudging Whitehall departments are,
frankly, told what to do.’
|
[16]
It’s quite an interesting take, because your reputation very
much—and you know, I would concur with this—is somebody
who achieves huge things within your role as Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland and so on, by gradually working with, and nudging
and collaborating to get the desired outcome. So, for you to say,
you know, ‘Frankly, sometimes these Whitehall departments
need to be told what to do’—
|
[17]
Lord Murphy: Told what to do to in the sense that—. I
don’t know, perhaps that’s a bit over the top for me,
but—
|
[18]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Don’t retreat from it now; I was
encouraged by that.
|
[19]
Lord Murphy: Quite recently, actually—Dafydd will tell
you—when we were in the various committee stages of the Wales
Bill recently in Parliament, one of the weaknesses, it seems to me,
of the Wales Bill is that there were so many Government departments
who wanted to retain various functions. Some of them were piffling,
to be perfectly honest, which eventually, I think, were
transferred, but it showed dramatically, as an exercise, how
individual Whitehall departments looked at and dealt with
devolution. ‘Jealousy’ is not the word, really, but
it’s a situation where they wanted to retain power, sometimes
just for the sake of it. Now, there are obviously certain things we
all agreed—like foreign affairs and defence and other
things—were vital to be retained in London. With others, it
wasn’t quite so vital, and this reserved powers notion that
we’ve now got, and which is now the law, is very good, so
long as Whitehall departments didn’t keep on trying to ensure
that they kept so much to themselves. And that was a good
illustration of how, in 2017, Whitehall departments in London still
don’t quite get it with regard to devolution. You’re
talking to someone who opposed devolution in 1978, by the way, and
I’ve changed my view over the years.
|
[20]
Lord Elis-Thomas: I vaguely remember that, yes.
|
[21]
Lord Murphy: Leo Abse, Neil Kinnock and myself were all on
the other side of the fence. Seventeen years of a different sort of
Government, but also a change in attitude amongst Welsh people, and
then, in my case, a change in my own mind as I got used more to
doing the job of Welsh Secretary, has meant, for example, that when
it came to the referendum on extra powers for Wales, I was a
fervent supporter of that, because I could see, frankly, how
successful the Assembly had been—and the Welsh Government had
been—in being closer to the Welsh people and being able to do
what they had to do. I wouldn’t have said that 20-odd years
ago, and I’ve changed my mind over the years. But I’m
not so convinced that the officials have, in England, or the
politicians around the Cabinet table. Time and time again—I
did it in when I was in Northern Ireland as well, but it was a
different case, of course, because there was a peace process there
as well—but the second time I was Welsh Secretary, I also had
a wider responsibility for devolution. Time and time again I had to
remind, around the Cabinet table when they were talking about X, Y
and Z, that this didn’t apply in Wales and it’s
different. They had to be reminded. That was my job. I’m not
saying I resented doing that because I was paid to do that, and
I’m assuming that all my successors in the role of Secretary
of State for Wales have to do that, including Alun now.
|
[22]
Huw Irranca-Davies: That’s fascinating, your insights
into this, and I assume that’s why you refer to the
importance of the Prime Minister also giving the Secretary of State
that support. I only have one other area, because I know that
colleagues are bursting to come in with questions as well. But to
turn the telescope down the other way, down here towards Cardiff
and the Welsh Assembly itself, we’re quite interested in
identifying when devolution works really well—when the
relationship works really well. So, if we put Whitehall to one side
for the moment, are there examples where there were particularly
sticky, tricky issues that were resolved between a Welsh Government
and the UK Government during your tenure? How were they resolved
and why were they resolved successfully? What makes that
relationship work, and what makes it fail?
|
[23]
Lord Murphy: I’ll link it into the very last point I
made before about Prime Ministers. The relationship between the
Welsh Secretary—and the Scottish Secretary for that
matter—and the Prime Minister is vital. I think my own
relationship with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, because they were
the two Prime Ministers I had to deal with, was pretty good, and I
was able to, if you like, talk to them individually, and privately
sometimes, about issues, because sometimes you can’t do that
in a committee setting or in a Cabinet meeting and you need to have
a separate chat. So, from time to time, I would, with both Prime
Ministers, have private sessions where I’d explain to them
what the issues were. There were a number of examples—a host
of examples—where it was the job of the Welsh Secretary and,
for that matter, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, as you know, to
deal individually with Ministers here in Cardiff. It’s all
down to people, Huw, at the end of the day, and building up a
relationship with people. Before I come to one or two issues, my
practice was, every week, to have a private meeting with either
Alun Michael or Rhodri Morgan who were the two First Ministers when
I was Secretary of State. Occasionally, I’d have a meeting
with the Presiding Officer as well on various issues from time to
time. But they were important because you could sit down around a
cup of coffee, informally, without any press or public or the rest
of it, to be able to iron out problems. I would say that, 80 per
cent of the time—perhaps even more—you could resolve
problems like that by simply having one-to-ones, and also the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary doing the same with the other
Ministers in Government. But not always; it’s made easier, of
course, if it’s the same party. Although, I have to say that,
in both coalitions—the Liberal one and the Plaid Cymru
one—I had no problems. I found that—perhaps it was
because we were Welsh; I don’t know—it was a good
relationship there too.
|
14:45
|
[24]
Now, as to issues, the biggest was Objective 1 and the
additionality. It led, of course, to the downfall of the first
First Minister. A huge issue, it took over a year to resolve. Of
course, Gordon Brown was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was
a big issue of principle at stake: is this Objective 1 money going
to be on top of the normal funding or does it simply plug the gap?
That became a huge issue that took, as I say, well over a year to
negotiate. That was probably the biggest single issue, but there
were lots and lots of others, covering all issues: cross-border
issues, for example, on health; education issues, obviously;
constitutional ones; and, above all else, financial ones, of
course, and the constant need to go to the Chief Secretary to the
Treasury, not just on the formal occasions with the autumn
statement or the budget, but also, from time to time, because of
various issues that were raised with me by the Welsh Government at
the time.
|
[25]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Paul, thank you. I’m sure
there’s more on that that we’ll return to if
we’ve got time, but, Dai, perhaps I can pass to you.
|
[26]
Dai Lloyd: Roeddwn i’n mynd i holi fy nghwestiynau yn
Gymraeg—y cyfarpar arferol o San Steffan.
|
Dai Lloyd: I was going to ask my
questions in Welsh—the usual equipment from Westminster.
|
[27]
Lord Murphy: It’s working.
|
[28]
Dai Lloyd: Da iawn. Rydych chi wedi sôn eisoes am bwysigrwydd cysylltiadau personol
yn nhermau cydweithio rhynglywodraethol, ond rydych chi hefyd wedi
sôn am eich cynnig y dylid cael pwyllgorau gwaith rhwng y
sefydliadau datganoledig a Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig. A ydych
chi eisio ymhelaethu ar hynny? Felly, nid jest cysylltiadau
personol, ond efallai rhyw fath o strwythur.
|
Dai Lloyd: Great. You’ve
mentioned already the importance of personal links and contacts in
terms of collaboration between Governments, but you’ve also
mentioned your proposal that there should be working committees
between the devolved institutions and the United Kingdom
Government. Would you care to expand on that? So, not just personal
links, but also some sort of structure.
|
[29]
Lord Murphy: As you know, there are formal links set up over
the last number of years—the Joint Ministerial Committee, the
British-Irish Council and so on. But they are, ultimately, in my
experience of them, terribly formal meetings where you issue
communiqués afterwards. You go through a process that is
overformal, to be honest. It does give you, I suppose, the
opportunity, when you’re at these meetings, to talk to
counterparts from across the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland
and Scotland—as well. As an aside, one of the most
interesting ones I ever attended was on health, and listening to
the Scottish and the Northern Ireland Ministers of health
describing how they dealt with certain issues and how we in Wales
dealt with them. For example, we talked a lot about our
telemedicine in remote, rural parts of Wales, as you would know
more than most people in your own profession. But I still think
they’re overformal.
|
[30]
I’m not saying they should be done away with, far from it. I
think they should be enhanced, and more of them. But I think that
there is a case for more informal working committees at both
political level and official level. I’m sure that there is
activity between officials in Cardiff and Westminster, but
I’m not sure it’s enough. I’ll give you one
example that came from the Wales Bill recently, which Dafydd and I
were involved in, and that was on Henry VIII powers and how
Parliament could actually introduce Henry VIII powers to affect
Welsh legislation—and oddly enough, vice versa as well. One
of the things we said that should happen was there should be more
contact all the time. So, it seems to me—not on things that
are routine or anything like that, but when there are issues, you
could set ad-hoc ones up on specific issues that are causing
problems. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, cross border
on health. Why couldn’t there be a working committee of
Ministers and/or officials on that? The thing is, it probably never
enters the heads of people in Whitehall, because, as I said
earlier, it’s not on their radar very often, but I think it
is something that you can pursue as a committee to ensure that
problems are identified before they become public and you can
resolve them either at official or ministerial level. Sometimes,
you can’t, and it has to go public. Sometimes you can. It
seems to me to be a good way of dealing with it.
|
[31]
Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr am hynny. Jest yn dilyn hynny,
gwnaethoch chi sôn am Gyd-bwyllgor
y Gweinidogion a’r gwendidau achos ffurfioldeb y peth. Sut,
felly, ydych chi’n credu y gallwn ni wella gweithrediad
Cyd-bwyllgor y Gweinidogion?
|
Dai
Lloyd: Thank you very much for that. Following on from that,
you mentioned the JMC and the weaknesses because of the formality
of it. How then do you believe that we could improve the machinery
of this?
|
[32]
Lord Murphy: Well I think there’s probably a case for
the different administrations being asked to review the working of
the Joint Ministerial Committee. Perhaps that’s something you
could think about in recommendations; that they become more
meaningful. What is certain is that a system will become much more
meaningful post Brexit—bound to be. Or, indeed, pre Brexit.
Because there are going to be huge issues that will affect us in
Wales as a consequence of our leaving Europe. It seems to me
that—. Well, you’ve already had one haven’t you,
recently, some weeks ago here in Cardiff? That was the
British-Irish Council, wasn’t it? But nevertheless
they’re both fora where you can talk with each other.
Megaphone diplomacy never works. It seems to me that there’s
a strong case for making the JMC more meaningful by having more
committees of the JMC, so that you can identify various issues that
are important, particularly in the context of Brexit.
|
[33]
Dai Lloyd: Ie, diolch am
hynny. Yn bellach, byddwch yn ymwybodol yn naturiol fod yna
ganllawiau ar ddatganoli sy’n nodi’r cyngor ar
drefniadau gweithio rhwng Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig, y
Llywodraeth fan hyn ac yn yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon.
Nid oes gan y canllawiau yna ddim
grym cyfreithiol. A ydych
chi’n gweld bod gyda nhw rôl i’w chwarae yn
gwella cysylltiadau rhwng fan hyn a Llundain, dywedwch?
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you for that. Further
to that, you’re aware naturally that there are devolution
guidance notes that exist in facilitating inter-governmental
relations between the UK Government, the Government here and
Northern Ireland and Scotland. Those notes don’t have any
legal power. Do you think they have a role to play in improving
relations between here and London?
|
[34]
Lord Murphy: Yes, I think they do. I don’t think we
had anything like devolution guidance notes in the early days, but
later on they came. Because, of course, misunderstandings and
disagreements developed, as obviously the Welsh Government and the
Welsh Assembly themselves flourished over the years. So, yes,
it’s very important that they’re there, but they have
no, I suppose, legal basis. On the other hand, if they are breached
then there is a very serious case to go to the JMC and complain
about their being breached.
|
[35]
But ultimately, as I said earlier to Huw, everything in this game
is about—by which I mean the game of
politics—individual personal relationships. Not always easy
on a political level if you are dealing with a Minister in London
who is diametrically opposed to the Minister in Cardiff on a
particular issue. Education, I think, was an example of that; last
year and the year before when it was quite difficult because they
were really going down different pathways. But you have to accept
that’s going to be the case. I was very lucky, as I said
earlier, in that there was no problem in that respect during the
times when I was Secretary of State, but I knew it couldn’t
last either way. You know, there could be a different
administration here from a Labour one and similarly in London. So,
sooner or later this is going to happen. That’s when the
machinery becomes more significant, and the guidance, in that
whereas you can within your political party try and resolve things
sometimes, over a pint of beer or whatever it might be, there are
times when you can’t do that and you have to have more formal
arrangements set up. Even so, it seems to me that my experience of
Conservative Secretaries of State here in Wales is such that
because we are in Wales they are of a different nature, so that you
do get a better relationship between any Welsh Secretary from any
political party in Wales than necessarily you would do from their
Cabinet counterparts in London.
|
[36]
Dai Lloyd: Diolch am hynny. Y
cwestiwn olaf, rwy’n credu, achos rydych chi wedi ateb un
ynglŷn â rôl y ddwy wahanol glymblaid yn y lle yma
yn eich amser, ac wrth gwrs cryfder perthnasau personol, fel
roeddech chi’n dweud, a oedd yn dod â llwyddiant yn y
fan honno. Roeddwn i jest eisiau gorffen fy rhan i beth bynnag drwy
ofyn i chi: yn eich profiad chi—a hefyd rydych chi wedi yn
rhannol ateb hwn yn gynharach—pa mor ymwybodol ydy swyddogion
yn Whitehall ynglŷn â gwaith dydd i ddydd y lle hwn?
Achos weithiau, o brofiad dros y blynyddoedd yn fan hyn, rydym ni
wedi bod yn cynnal ymchwiliadau gan ba bynnag bwyllgor yn fan
hyn—dyweder y pwyllgor iechyd, ac ati, neu’r pwyllgor
hwn—ac rydym ni wedi anfon gwahoddiad i ryw Weinidog neu
arall i ddod i fan hyn, i ddod a rhoi gwybodaeth gerbron neu ryw
fath o dystiolaeth, ac, yn aml, nid oes yna hyd yn oed
gydnabyddiaeth bod y gwahoddiad yna wedi cymryd lle. Wedyn, hefyd
rydw i wedi bod yn rhan o rai ymchwiliadau, ac yn wastadol pan
rydym ni’n trio ymchwilio ar y cyd rhwng fan hyn a San
Steffan a hefyd efo’r Alban, yn wastad, y peth ydy,
mae’n rhaid i bawb fynd i Lundain. Nid oes sôn am bobl
Whitehall yn dod allan i unrhyw le. Efallai bod pethau wedi gwella,
er nid wyf yn gweld llawer o arwyddion o hynny mae gen i ofn.
Mae’n deg nodi—sawl gwaith y gwnaeth y pwyllgor hwn roi
gwahoddiad i Ysgrifennydd Cymru? Pedair gwaith? Ac ni wnaeth
ymddangos yr un o’r pedair gwaith yna. Felly, jest o’ch
profiad chi, pa mor ymwybodol ydy Whitehall ac Aelodau Seneddol
o’r gwaith o ddydd i ddydd yn y lle hwn?
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you. The final
question, I think, because you’ve answered a question on the
roles of the two different coalitions in this place during your
time, and it was the strength of personal relationships, as you
said, that brought success during that time. I just wanted to
finish my part by asking you: from your experience—and also
you’ve partly answered this earlier—how aware are
officials in Whitehall of the day-to-day work of this place?
Because sometimes, from experience here over the years, we’ve
had inquiries by whatever committee—for example, the health
committee, or even this committee—and we have sent an
invitation to some Minister or other to come here, to provide
information or some sort of evidence, and quite often there is not
even an acknowledgement that that invitation has taken place.
I’ve also been part of some inquiries, and every time when
we’re trying to hold an inquiry jointly with Westminster and
Scotland, every time, everybody has to go to London. There’s
no talk about Whitehall people coming out to anywhere. Perhaps
things have improved, but I don’t see many signs of that,
I’m afraid. It’s fair to note—how many times did
this committee invite the Welsh Secretary? Was is four times? And
he didn’t appear on any one of those four occasions. So, from
your experience, how aware is Whitehall and the Members of
Parliament of the day-to-day work in this place?
|
[37]
Lord Murphy: I actually don’t think they’re
very—. If you’re not a Welsh Member of Parliament, or a
Scottish Member of Parliament, or a Northern Ireland Member of
Parliament, it’s all foggy to you as an English MP or peer.
The Celtic mists. To their cost, actually, because they’ve
realised, for example in Scotland, that you ignore it at your
peril. I think Brexit will undoubtedly start to concentrate minds
more, to be honest, in that they’ll realise that even though
there may be no legal restraint on what they do, the fact is that
they’re going to have to consult and talk with the devolved
administrations a lot more because of leaving the European Union.
In fact, it was my view—with hindsight, I suppose—that
the referendum itself should have been subject to the consent of
the three devolved countries. But it wasn’t to be. But
nevertheless, with two out of the three who voted to stay in
Europe—unfortunately we didn’t, but nevertheless we
have huge issues with Brexit—then it seems to me that that
will concentrate their minds more.
|
[38]
There may be a case within Whitehall—perhaps they’ve
done it since I’ve left—where you can have some
training sessions for people so that they can understand that it
isn’t quite the same anymore. The BBC have learnt. If you
notice, in the last couple of days there’ve been lots of
stories about the health service, but they always now qualify
‘in England’. They didn’t use to do that, by the
way. We’ve had a long row about that with them over the
years. But they are much more conscious of it. As I said, I do
think both the Assembly and the Welsh Government now have an
opportunity with Scottish and Northern Ireland counterparts to
concentrate more on these relations, because of what’s ahead
of us. It’s a big issue.
|
[39]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Dai, wyt ti wedi gorffen?
|
Huw Irranca-Davies: Dai, have you
finished?
|
[40]
I’m going to bring David in in a moment, but can I just
return—? It’s a curious journey, mine, from Westminster
down here to the Senedd, and without commenting, actually, on
the recent Wales Bill so much, I wonder what your views are on the
propensity of UK Ministers, not necessarily from the Wales Office,
but perhaps other ones, where there is a significant Welsh interest
that a committee is looking at—. In this case it was the
Wales Bill, and we had a mass of evidence that we thought was of
use, but it could be another area where it would be worth asking a
UK Minister to come down here, or for us to go up to there. Do you
have a feel on whether UK Ministers should normally or should
sometimes appear on a bona fide request in front of a committee
from this place?
|
[41]
Lord Murphy: Yes, I do. I think it works both ways,
incidentally. I think that there are times in Westminster when
Welsh Ministers could and ought to go to select committees, or
whatever it might be, not just on obvious things like cross-border
issues, but on comparing best practice. Often we’re talking
about where we disagree, but the great thing about—or the
theoretical great thing about—joint working is that you can
learn from each other: learn from your mistakes, but also learn
from your successes. It is an awful lot to learn on how you run
services, and ultimately, of course, it’s all about the
people out there that matter—the 3.5 million people in Wales.
Will they benefit from improved relations between the two
Governments and Parliaments? Of course they will, and there
shouldn’t be an impediment.
|
15:00
|
[42]
It’s officials, very often, advising Ministers—and
I’ve seen this in the past—because they know little
about devolution. They say ‘Ah, well, this is an unknown
territory here. Don’t get involved in any of this, whatever
you do,’ partly because they’re a bit concerned that
they may get caught out. But it’s not a question of catching
people out; it’s about trying to ensure that there’s a
smooth relationship, but also that services can be improved in both
England and Wales by looking at each other’s best practice.
So, the more that we do it, the better. Ministers should be
encouraged, and if they’re not from the UK Government point
of view, then it should be the Welsh Secretary, in the end, if
necessary, appealing to the Prime Minister. Here, if a Welsh
Government Minister is reluctant to go to London, then the First
Minister could be involved, if it’s so important.
|
[43]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Paul, could I push you a tiny bit
further on that? Do you think, as we move through this imminent
transition now, into this post-Brexit scenario that you referred to
and the implications of that for devolution and for the United
Kingdom, that that interplay, when Ministers from the different
nations and regions, but also from the UK Parliament, see
themselves as making themselves available, both ways, as you say,
is more important, actually, now?
|
[44]
Lord Murphy: Yes, it’s hugely important in the context
of Brexit—not the least of which is that a lot of the
services we provide in Wales are, effectively, if you like,
European services, whether it’s fishing or agriculture, or
whatever it might be. These are services, functions, if you like,
of the Welsh Government and the Assembly that have been deeply
linked in to the European Union over the years. Now, with our
leaving and with Welsh Government Ministers being actively involved
over the last 20 years in Europe, by going to council meetings and
all the rest of it, there’s a massive amount of work to be
done. I think that both Cardiff and Westminster, at their peril,
ignore each other on these issues—at their peril.
|
[45]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Paul. David.
|
[46]
David Melding: Thank you, Chair. Very interesting exchanges.
If I can be permitted one reflection, when I was the Chair of this
committee, after the Wales Office, the best department of state by
far in terms of our engagement with it was the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. I suppose they’re used to other
Governments, but they were polite and engaging. I remember a very
useful session we had with the Minister of State who came to
Cardiff to give evidence to us, David Lidington, on Wales’s
voice in Europe, but I have to say it’s not common practice
across Whitehall departments—
|
[47]
Lord Murphy: But, I suppose, in a sense, you see, with the
foreign office, they’ve got nothing to lose.
[Laughter.]
|
[48]
David Melding: They know how to deal—
|
[49]
Lord Murphy: They’re not threatened at all.
|
[50]
David Melding: That’s true. I think you’ve been
very instrumental in setting up and then the operation of the
British-Irish Council, and I wonder what value you place on that
and how you think that operates, perhaps compared to the remarks
you’ve made on the JMC, which tends to be a bit stiff and
formal, and then doesn’t quite have the natural networking
that gets business done.
|
[51]
Lord Murphy: As you know, the British-Irish Council was
strand three of the Good Friday agreement, and myself and Liz
O’Donnell, as an Irish Minister, chaired that strand for two
years. It was something that, initially, the unionists were more
concerned about, because they saw this east-west relationship as
being, if you like, a counterpart to north-south. But, ultimately,
as the time went by, I think politicians from across the island of
Ireland, including nationalists as well as unionists in the north,
found it to be a very useful way of getting together.
|
[52]
It’s a vital instrument. I don’t exempt it from
over-formality—the British-Irish Council, now. I think some
of its committees work more informally, but my experience of the
British-Irish Council is that it’s more significant because
of the personal relationships that can be built up, and, as you
know, because you’ve been a long-standing member of the
British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly over the years, David, you
build up relations not just with Northern Ireland, Scotland and
Wales, but also with the Isle of Man, with Guernsey and with
Jersey, as well as with the UK Government. So, there’s a huge
potential there, post-Brexit again. I keep coming back to this: the
implications of Brexit for both Ireland and Northern Ireland, and
for the relationship between those two places, and the United
Kingdom and with Wales, are absolutely enormous. A lot can go wrong
in the next couple of years on this, so I think that the
British-Irish Council, which met recently, and its
committees—and I’m assuming they’ve got
committees set up to deal with Brexit—is a massively
important vehicle by which they can try and resolve some of these
huge issues. It isn’t simply a question of the border in the
north, for example; it’s also the whole business of the Good
Friday agreement, which was a semi-diplomatic, semi-legal document.
How do you ensure that that is kept intact as a consequence of
Europe? There are amendments being debated today in the House of
Commons on precisely that. So, I think that, whereas it has been a
bit over-formal, but has given an opportunity for personal
relationships to build up, it’s now going to become hugely
significant, and should be. Again, I think there’s something
your committee might consider—that, within the context of
Brexit, a lot more use should be made of it. It really should
be.
|
[53]
David Melding: That’s very helpful. I take from this
that these networks are very important, and I just wonder for the
future whether some form of something analogous to the
British-Irish Council is going to be required between the UK and
the EU. Have you heard any thinking along these lines? I’ve
picked it up in the occasional article in the Financial
Times or something, but it seems to me quite a constructive
suggestion.
|
[54]
Lord Murphy: It’s one way of certainly trying to
soften the blow, I suppose, to those of us who vehemently wanted us
to remain in the European Union. But it is a model. I think that
there’s a Nordic Council that brings together the
Scandinavian countries. Norway’s not in the European Union;
the other three are. So, there is a case, perhaps, for looking at
something like that and it’s something that the British-Irish
Council itself could look at, because I certainly know that the
Irish Government is very perplexed about what’s going to
happen, not least of which, of course—is it £1 billion
a month or something like that that comes between the United
Kingdom and Ireland? There are huge implications in all this, so,
if you could extend that, then all the better.
|
[55]
To extend your point, David, about east-west relations, the
British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly itself, which, effectively, is
the parliamentary part of strand 3, and which has developed over
the years, and which really was instrumental in the early years in
bringing Irish politicians—Dai was on it as
well—together when things were hard and difficult, it’s
also a really good means at the moment by which politicians who are
not Government Ministers can get together. Now, I understand from
people who are on it—. I’m no longer on it, because I
fell between two stools; I left the House of Commons and entered
the House of Lords, and in the meantime they’d put the new
people on, so, I’m out of it, but I do keep in touch with
people, and they tell me that Europe and Brexit is a huge part of
what they intend to do over the next couple of years. Very
important. And the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly have played
big roles in these British-Irish organisations, and rightly so,
too.
|
[56]
David Melding: I have to say, I’m no longer on BIPA
either in this fifth Assembly.
|
[57]
Lord Murphy: No, well, that’s two of us.
|
[58]
Dai Lloyd: A sad blow.
|
[59]
David Melding: Given your reflections when you were a member
and Co-Chair of BIPA, as a parliamentary body, I suppose, in a way,
it was the opposite to some of the criticisms we’re making
of, say, the Joint Ministerial Committee in that it was too
informal. Would you say that that is fair—that it sometimes
had a slightly lackadaisical agenda and wasn’t
quite—?
|
[60]
Lord Murphy: It depended a lot on who the Co-Chairs were, of
course. The Co-Chair would be responsible, effectively, for the
agenda of the Assembly. Sometimes, it could be a bit mundane, shall
we say? But I think, in a way, it was set up really centring on the
peace process in Northern Ireland, so it was very much involved
with Northern Ireland for its first couple of decades, inevitably.
Since we’ve had a settlement in Northern
Ireland—although there are issues there, of course, as we all
know, that need to be resolved; that’s going to be another
headache, I think, over the next couple of months—they were
really looking for a wider role beyond the Northern Ireland peace
process, which is quite right, because it is much wider than that.
I think sometimes they struggled to find something that was really
significant. Now they’ve got it, on Europe and
Brexit—something they can really get their teeth into. I hope
that they’ll be able to do an awful lot of good work, which
I’m sure they will do, on smoothing this transition between
one of the member states that has stayed in the European Union and
the other one that is now leaving. So, as I say, there’s a
lot of work to be done on that issue.
|
[61]
David Melding: It’s an interesting point, because
it’s such a pressing issue now; it’s not quite up there
with the peace process, but not far behind, is it, when you look at
the consequences of Brexit.
|
[62]
Lord Murphy: It’s pretty significant. It also
doesn’t take away what you and I and Dai would have known
over the years, and that is the opportunity for politicians from
across these islands to get together and talk—this dreadful
word ‘networking’, but you know what I mean. You could
talk to each other and, very often, that destroyed barriers,
certainly on the Northern Ireland peace process; it destroyed
historical barriers brilliantly, but it can also help in other
respects too.
|
[63]
David Melding: And, finally, you said earlier that you
thought it would be good if we were fairly relaxed and almost
routine about the possibility of UK Ministers giving evidence to
Assembly committees, and then Welsh Government Ministers also
giving evidence to Westminster committees from time to time.
Extending that, I’d just like to ask what you think the
possibilities for future joint work between parliamentary
committees and Assembly committees are, because that may align with
that principle of joint working.
|
[64]
Lord Murphy: Well, I think the principle is excellent.
It’s really getting your counterparts in London interested in
these issues. Let’s take, again, the obvious one at the
moment. There is now a select committee on Brexit, chaired by
Hilary Benn, and it seems to me that that committee in
particular—there are lots of others, too; I’m just
giving this as an example—the Brexit select committee would
be an ideal parliamentary committee to liaise with its equivalent
here in Cardiff, absolutely ideal. I think you could suggest that
even before you finish your report, because time is moving on. When
this great repeal Bill comes through, the implications of that for
Wales are enormous in terms of the various functions that the
Assembly has. So, that’s one example, but there are others
too that you can liaise on, including the Treasury select
committee. Now that the fundraising powers of the Assembly have
changed, there’s another example; for example, after a year
or two of looking at the new income tax arrangements or other tax
arrangements, you could liaise with the Treasury committee. The
Department for Culture, Media and Sport—all sorts of
possibilities there that they could look at.
|
[65]
Huw Irranca-Davies: It strikes me how radical the amount of
change within the structures already that there has been, as
we’ve gone through the stages of devolution. Now, Brexit has
almost given a turbo boost to the necessity to look at these
afresh, and are they fit for purpose, do they need a refresh, the
review that you’ve mentioned of some of them. But, on that
point, I think, Dafydd, let’s go to your line of thoughts and
questions.
|
[66]
Lord Elis-Thomas: You mentioned in passing on a number of
occasions the different way in which Northern Ireland and Wales and
Scotland and England voted in the European referendum. What do you
think are the short to medium to longer-term—giving you a
broad scenario—implications of these votes to be? The
implications in terms of relations within Ireland, north and south,
but also the relationships between the devolved Governments and,
indeed, the devolved legislatures.
|
[67]
Lord Murphy: I think it could be a dramatic and tumultuous
couple of years ahead of us, and that’s why I think the
subject of your investigation, inquiry, about relations between
Governments and Parliaments is absolutely critical to this, because
it could really explode, it seems to me—you know, the views
of the Scottish Government have been very precise on this; Northern
Ireland, having voted for remaining in the European Union, but big
divisions within the political setup there as well; and ourselves,
here, where the bulk, I rather fancy, of Assembly Members would be
in favour of remaining, and yet Wales itself deciding, perversely,
to go the other way. So, that, in itself, is a real recipe
for—I wouldn’t go as far as saying
‘disaster’ because that’s wrong, because we can
overcome these things, but it is a recipe for an awful lot of
confusion and difficulty, unless politicians in all the different
capitals decide to address some of the issues. It’s really
down to, for example, the Prime Minister, who’s in charge of
it all, really, to understand the devolved aspect to all this.
|
15:15
|
[68]
We’ll see in Parliament in the next month, in the Lords and
the Commons, how much time is going to be devoted to the needs of
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, post Brexit, compared with
anywhere else and see whether it’s taken seriously by the
Government itself. They say that they’re taking it seriously,
and I hope they are, because even though we don’t add up in
terms of population to much more than, as I say, 11 million people,
we are, I think, a hugely significant issue now, which we
wouldn’t have been had there not been devolution. At their
peril, they ignore Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, when it
comes to European Union issues in the coming months, but
there’s a real potential for an awful lot of difficulty there
if we’re not careful.
|
[69]
Lord Elis-Thomas: I’m not sure that the Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom is able to distinguish between the role of
the United Kingdom in international negotiations on treaties and
the particular implications of this treaty, because she keeps
repeating that these are matters for the UK Government and UK
Parliament. However, you will know very well that the Government of
Wales Act 2006, as our constitution in Wales, defining our
relationship, very much emphasises that everything we do has to be
currently within competence of European legislation—
|
[70]
Lord Murphy: Of course.
|
[71]
Lord Elis-Thomas: —and our competence has to relate to
that. It seems to me that, if our competence has to relate, then,
when that constitutional plank of our activity is removed, surely
we must have a voice.
|
[72]
Lord Murphy: Yes, I think the problem was that the
Government machine in London never expected a ‘no’
vote—or a ‘leave’ vote, I should say. They never
quite got that. I’m not sure whether they’ve thought
about the devolved aspect seriously, because they never thought it
would happen. Now it has, they’d better get their thinking
hats on, because each individual country—Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland—all have different takes, if you like, to
Brexit. I’ve touched on the Northern Ireland one, but it
isn’t simply about the border; the whole of the Good Friday
agreement is based upon joint membership of the European Union.
Unless they address that, then there could be a hugely difficult
implication for the peace process in Northern Ireland as well as
the political situation in Scotland, inevitably, now, with the
Scottish National Party Government, having had an independence
referendum, and all of the significance of what’s happened
there, and then with ourselves with such a huge reliance on Europe
over the last 20 years that our leaving Europe, in terms of the
effect upon Welsh men and women, is much more significant than in
many, many English regions.
|
[73]
So, as I say, they do it at their peril. But what’s got to
happen is that the Cabinet and the Prime Minister is made aware of
this. For example, as far as I know, the Northern
Ireland—and, as far as I know, the Welsh—Secretary
weren’t members of the relevant committee dealing with
Brexit. Now, that’s madness. If they are not, then they
should be. I would be fighting, if I was Welsh Secretary, to ensure
that I was a member of the important decision-making Cabinet
committees on Brexit to make sure that they understand the issues
that the Assemblies and Governments have.
|
[74]
Lord Elis-Thomas: I think that particular position relates
to the notion that only the United Kingdom deals with foreign
affairs and international relations and treaties. But, of course,
the European Union—. Obviously, it’s an external
relation, but it’s a relation, in detail, with environmental
policy, agricultural policy and fisheries policy—all those
things—economic policy, regional policy, funding and
structural funds. All that is the meat and drink of Welsh
Government and local government in Wales.
|
[75]
Lord Murphy: That’s the ignorance that we started this
session off with, which is that Whitehall departments, some of
them, it wouldn’t have entered their heads that this was
going to be a huge issue, post the referendum decision. As I said,
it’s now the real responsibility of the three territorial
Secretaries of State now to push very hard that they’ve got
to look very carefully over the next couple of years, both in terms
of the legislation and also in terms of policy making, for the
Brexit decision on three countries—and also, I suspect, from
the Welsh Assembly’s point of view, I’m sure that the
First Minister is making this point all the time, but keep on bangs
that door and sounding the trumpet that you can’t keep
on—. I mean, technically, yes, okay—technically,
it’s a United Kingdom function, but the implications of it on
devolution are enormous.
|
[76]
Lord Elis-Thomas: Yes, and given where my first question to
you on this started, on the different futures voted for in the
different countries or parts of the United Kingdom, that in itself
should be enough of a warning to Government, I would have
thought.
|
[77]
Lord Murphy: I would have thought.
|
[78]
Lord Elis-Thomas: But they don’t seem to understand
that.
|
[79]
Lord Murphy: Not to mention also, Dafydd, the issue of
money, because we rely so heavily in Wales on European funding.
When that funding goes, are they going to plug the gap there? You
know, that’s the obvious one. There are huge implications for
negotiation on the financial settlement that arises post Brexit,
for all the different communities that rely on European funding in
Wales.
|
[80]
Lord Elis-Thomas: Globally, but it also applies very
specifically to each income stream—for example, to Welsh
farmers.
|
[81]
Lord Murphy: Of course, yes.
|
[82]
Lord Elis-Thomas: And Welsh fisheries. So, could I go on to
ask: we’ve mentioned the Joint Ministerial Council and the
importance of that structure and the co-operation that you were
able to take part in as a multiple Secretary of State, if I can put
it like that—do you think this structure is adaptable to the
new situation? Because it seems to me that the evidence of the
Joint Ministerial Council involving the Prime Minister and city
hall hardly bodes well for what that organisation could or should
do in this situation.
|
[83]
Lord Murphy: No, it doesn’t bode well. It may have
been—and even then it’d be doubtful—okay for
years gone by, but in this new context, it’s over formal, it
meets too infrequently, and whereas you do have to have heads of
government meeting from time to time, and of course that’s
difficult to organise, a lot of the work doesn’t involve
heads of government; it involves Ministers, it involves junior
Ministers, it involves officials. And so they need to
have—and I think this is where, again, your committee,
hopefully, would be able to make recommendations, and then to your
counterparts in Edinburgh and Belfast as well—it’s got
to be a lot more significant to deal with the Brexit situation.
It’s too formal, it’s too infrequent, and it’s
too bulky, unwieldy, an institution to deal with it. Simply to turn
up on a day in Cardiff, issuing a communiqué that
you’ve all agreed on this or disagreed on that, that’s
not the way to do it. You’ve got to do it a much more
detailed, negotiating way. It will test it considerably.
|
[84]
Lord Elis-Thomas: I’m going to have a joint
reminiscence session for us now on our progress on the Wales Bill,
and then I will leave you in peace, Paul—I’m very
grateful to have you here.
|
[85]
We have experienced, have we not, yet again, the difficult
situation that arises when UK Parliament, and the UK Government in
the UK Parliament, seeks to legislate where they don’t really
understand the practice they are legislating about. By which I mean
it was fairly clear to me in our debates, particularly in the upper
House, it was those who had been involved as participants, whether
they were speaking for the Government, as in the case of Lord
Bourne, or yourself, and myself—I don’t know what I am
now; I’m non-affiliated, actually, in the upper House; so,
speaking as a practitioner of devolution on the Wales level, and
you on the UK level involving Wales and Northern Ireland—I
would suggest that, in that situation, we seemed to know what we
were talking about, but it seemed to me that there was no real
interest in the rest of the House in what was going on, or
understanding. Do you think there is a way in which we can improve
legislative practice, whereby there is more co-legislation or
co-operation between legislative committees on the way we make law
that is for the United Kingdom and especially where it involves
devolved law?
|
[86]
Lord Murphy: Yes, I think so. It’s something that, I
mean, again, you can examine whether, if you were dealing with a
Bill, for instance, that covers only Wales, as this one did,
whether there could have been some other—although this
committee did make its point of view well known to those of us who
were taking part in the committee. Conceivably, you could have
another stage put in the process, not one that necessarily takes a
decision, but a consultative stage where the Welsh Assembly could
come to Parliament in some form or another, i.e. you as a
committee, or even Welsh Government Ministers, to turn up at some
sort of pre-legislative scrutiny process to deal with issues like
this. To my knowledge, there was no pre-legislative scrutiny of the
Bill. One fell and then the other one came in.
|
[87]
Lord Elis-Thomas: Although, we contributed to
both—
|
[88]
Lord Murphy: You contributed, but it isn’t quite the
same as being actually talking across the table to each other. I
think there may be a case for Bills that affect Wales like that,
which start life off in Westminster, where there’s a more
formal but not necessarily a decision-making stage where you can
deal with it. I think, incidentally, that the debates on the Wales
Bill were fuller than they were in the House of Commons, partly
because they ran out of time. As you know better than me, we get
more of an opportunity to talk about these things in there and some
significant changes were made.
|
[89]
Lord Bourne—of course, partly, I suspect, because of his big
connections with the Welsh Assembly—was very accommodating.
Lots of changes were actually made to the Bill. I rather fancy, if
it had been somebody else from another department talking about
these issues in the House of Lords, we might not have had quite the
same treatment as we did. But because he knew about Wales and was
involved for many, many years, leading the Conservative group here,
we had a better deal, to be honest.
|
[90]
There were still issues that Dafydd and I were unhappy about. Air
passenger duty is one. We battled for a long time on that and lost.
I think it was a daft decision by the Government. I’m not
saying it was Nick Bourne’s fault—I mean, he’s
got to deal with collective responsibility. And back to the first
question again, I’d bet your bottom dollar that that decision
wasn’t a decision that was taken by the Wales Office, but by
the Department for Transport, or somewhere else, that would have
dealt with that—to give you a small example but an important
one there. Why should Wales be different from Northern Ireland and
Scotland on air passenger duty? Because of Bristol. That was the
essence of it. But that’s just one grievance I’ve got
on that one.
|
[91]
Lord Elis-Thomas: Our conversation can’t stop without
reference to the Sewel convention.
|
[92]
Lord Murphy: Oh, yes.
|
[93]
Lord Elis-Thomas: I do think we are in interesting times on
this as well, although maybe this has not been fully spotted or
pursued, in that the Supreme Court, in its recent judgment,
emphasised that, of course, it was for the United Kingdom
Parliament to make a decision, the decision, any decision about any
vote in relation to negotiations with the European Union. However,
they also emphasised the importance of the growth of the Sewel
convention as a way of defining the relationship between
legislation in the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. I
think we have not looked sufficiently, perhaps, at the potential of
this, because if the Sewel convention implies—well, not
‘implies’ now, it’s in law already for Scotland
and will be for us when the Wales Bill has Royal Assent to become
the Wales Act. There is the accepted view in law that, normally, UK
Government does not legislate—
|
[94]
Lord Murphy: Without the consent.
|
[95]
Lord Elis-Thomas: —without the consent. That opens the
whole question of on what should the devolved legislatures have an
opportunity of having their consent sought. Because if it becomes a
general principle that consent should be sought on those matters
that are devolved, then the area of devolution being unequal
between the different legislatures and the extent of powers
devolved not being symmetrical—is there not a case for a
pan-UK Sewel convention, which is fairly consistent, which brings
us almost to a federal situation?
|
[96]
Lord Murphy: Yes, I think there probably is a case and it
strikes me that that’s exactly the sort of thing that a
proper JMC ought to consider, with heads of government on it. It
was right, for example, that the Wales Bill effectively
wouldn’t have passed without the legislative consent motion
of the Assembly, because what’s the point of passing a Bill
that’s going to be seen as a hostile Bill by the people who
are going to operate it? Happily, that wasn’t the case, but
it was a good example of where the legislative consent motion
system worked very well, it seemed to me. It had a good effect upon
British Government Ministers too, because they realised that, for
that Bill to go through, they had to really get most of
it—not all of it, but most of it—agreed by the Welsh
Government and by the Welsh Assembly.
|
15:30
|
[97]
Lord Elis-Thomas: And the Minister helpfully indicated that
he would not move to the third reading unless there was
consent.
|
[98]
Lord Murphy: Oh, he said that, absolutely. Yes, he did say
that, and that was good, because it meant that, if you were going
to get a workable solution to all this, you had to get both sides
to agree, so to speak. But again, Brexit is going to test this to a
great extent. Because what is effectively a UK function or a
devolved function when it comes to European issues? Well,
it’s both. Does it mean, for example, that a legislative
consent motion could be withheld here for some aspects of the great
repeal Act, for example?
|
[99]
Lord Elis-Thomas: Indeed.
|
[100] Lord
Murphy: I bet your bottom dollar that they haven’t
thought of this one, but they’ll have to get their thinking
caps on.
|
[101] Lord
Elis-Thomas: Well, we have thought of it down here.
|
[102] Lord
Murphy: Because all three administrations will soon get
themselves stuck into this particular situation big time.
Inevitably, the way in which we benefit in Wales from our
membership of the European Union is so enormous that you
wouldn’t be doing your duty in the Welsh Assembly if you
didn’t actually point out to the British Government and
Parliament what the implications of all these different things will
be for us.
|
[103] Huw
Irranca-Davies: David, you wanted to come back.
|
[104] David
Melding: Thank you, Chair. Actually, it’s quite apposite
because it pursues the point that you were making at the end there,
in terms of the co-operation that’s going to be required.
There’s been quite a lot of talk, and I think it’s fair
to say that the Welsh Government has indicated that a UK framework
for policy areas like agriculture and the environment could well be
beneficial. But, in its White Paper, the Welsh Government says that
that would require the JMC to be replaced by a council of Ministers
with—and this is the very significant point, I
think—independent arbitration. Now, if that were to happen,
we would move very firmly in a federal direction, and I just wonder
whether you think, you know, this is at all feasible. My view, as a
long-standing federalist, is that it would be desirable. But I just
wonder, given the state of English opinion: are they going to be
able to see the four Governments co-operating as partners, rather
than being, on common areas, led by the UK Government, with the
Celtic fringe following obediently behind, as it were?
|
[105] Lord
Murphy: ‘Council of Ministers’ is a better phrase
than the JMC in some ways, because it gives it a better-sounding
name. It is a European-sounding name and more significant, if you
like. But I think that, in terms of the substance of it, the way
things are going in Scotland and, to a lesser extent, here and in
Northern Ireland, where devolution is so embedded—I’ll
reword what I’ve said—. Because of what’s
happened in Scotland in terms of the referendum, which was close,
and in terms of what powers they’ve got, and the increased
powers of the Welsh Assembly and Government—and, hopefully,
the return of Northern Ireland—it will mean that
they’re going to develop more over the years. The big issue
is England. What do you do with it? It’s the big brother,
both in terms of population, in terms of the economy and so on.
Until they become more interested, if you like, in regional
government, that’s going to be difficult. I have always
believed in some sort of federal system that involves English
regional government, but it seems to me that there’s no huge
appetite outside London for that. But perhaps that will change in
the context of Brexit.
|
[106] David
Melding: I agree with that. Do you think it’s at all
feasible that the UK Government—say, if we had a UK framework
for agriculture—would then submit itself to independent
arbitration on—?
|
[107] Lord
Murphy: No, I can’t see them agreeing to that,
personally. Who would be the independent arbiter, anyway?
|
[108] Lord
Elis-Thomas: You, Paul.
|
[109] Lord
Murphy: I could see what I could do, but not on
agriculture—not exactly my field. Huw might manage it better
than me, as a former agriculture Minister. But I think the trends
are going in different directions. I think what you are discussing
and investigating at the moment is so important because of the
context of Brexit and all these things.
|
[110] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Paul, thank you very much. We have run a little
bit over, but it’s because I think we found the session so
very interesting. We could carry on, but we don’t want to
delay you. One thing that strikes me here, Paul, is that it is not
only the simply the massive journey that devolution has been
through, and we now face Brexit in front of us, but also the way in
which your views have changed, faced with where we are at any
moment in time, and also that unfailing optimism that if we get the
relationships right, as well as the structures, we can find a way
through whatever confronts us on a governmental or a parliamentary
basis, and that’s quite reassuring. But you do, I think, hold
out for us, quite wisely, both the threat and opportunity. Brexit
actually provides us with some crashing scenarios of threat but
also, potentially, if we and the UK Government and the nations and
regions choose to do so, to refresh the way in which we interact
within these islands, and perhaps to futureproof it as well.
Because you mentioned the unfinished business, in many ways, of
devolution within England. Well, perhaps what we need to do is
think a little bit further ahead, then—what do we need in
place to make sure that this is fit for the next 20, 30 or 40
years? But thank you very much. Is there anything else you want to
add, Paul?
|
[111] Lord
Murphy: Nothing other than to thank you for a very interesting
session, and to say that Brexit, for all its enormous faults, gives
you an opportunity to look at these issues in a fresh light. But
thanks very much.
|
[112] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Thank you. Could I emit my apologies for not
giving Nathan Gill’s apologies at the very beginning? So,
I’ve put those on record now. Thank you very much indeed,
Paul. We will send the transcript to you for checking. If there is
anything else that you want to add when you’ve gone away and
you think, ‘There was a gem I was going to say’, please
just drop us a line. Thank you very much.
|
[113] Lord
Murphy: Thank you very much indeed. All the best.
|
[114] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Diolch yn fawr. Now, can I just ask
Members—do you want a short rest break or are you happy to
continue?
|
[115] Dai
Lloyd: We’ll soldier on.
|
[116] Huw
Irranca-Davies: We will soldier on. Okay. Thank you very much.
We’ll return in private session to consider the evidence that
we’ve just heard, but if we can move now on to the items in
front of us today.
|
15:37
|
Offerynnau Nad Ydynt yn Cynnwys Unrhyw Faterion
i’w Codi o dan Reol Sefydlog 21.2 neu 21.3
Instruments that Raise No Reporting Issues under Standing Order
21.2 or 21.3
|
[117] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Under item 3, we have instruments that raise no
reporting issues under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3, and we have
four negative resolution instruments there—all of which are
statutory instruments with clear reports. I won’t read out
the long titles of them; they’re all there in the papers. Do
we have any observations from members of the committee or are you
happy to note them? They are with clear reports.
|
[118] David
Melding: Content.
|
[119] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Content. Thank you very much.
|
Offerynnau
sy’n Cynnwys Materion i Gyflwyno Adroddiad Arnynt i'r
Cynulliad o dan Reol Sefydlog 21.2 neu 21.3
Instruments that Raise Issues to be reported to the Assembly under
Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3
|
[120] Huw
Irranca-Davies: We then move on to item 4. It’s an
instrument that does raise a small merit issue, not a technical
issue. I think the notes that were circulated may be slightly
worded wrongly there, suggesting that there are no issues to report
on this one. This is a statutory instrument that does have a small
merit report, and I’ll turn to Gareth in a moment, just to
highlight it with us. It’s the affirmative resolution
instrument on the Education Workforce Council (Accreditation of
Initial Teacher Training) (Additional Functions) (Wales) Order
2017.
|
[121] Mr
Howells: I’d like to pass it on to Sam, our trainee
who’s with us today.
|
[122] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Thank you very much, and thanks for joining us
as well.
|
[123] Mr Mason:
No problem, Chair.
|
[124] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Okay, do you want to highlight for us what this
issue is?
|
[125] Mr Mason:
It’s merely that the criteria for the accreditation of the
initial teacher training, which is referenced in the Order,
wasn’t made entirely clear in the Order, but there are
follow-up regulations which are meant to be addressing that issue.
It has been indicated that regulations are going to follow if the
Order is approved by resolution. We have seen a draft of these
regulations and they do appear to plug the gap.
|
[126] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Very good, okay. So, we have the assurances
that, by the time this is laid in the Assembly, those accompanying
papers will be there. Apparently this is not unprecedented. The
question arises as to whether we simply note that, or whether, when
this does appear on the floor of the Senedd, we note it and simply
say a couple of lines that say, ‘When we considered this, we
did it noting that this was coming forward, and in time it has, so
we are content’. But it’s simply, if for nothing else,
to keep the Government on their toes, that we are checking
this.
|
[127]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: Rydw
i’n cytuno efo hynny, Gadeirydd. Mae’n sefyllfa
anffodus iawn pan mae unrhyw bwyllgor deddfwriaethol neu gorff
seneddol, megis y Cynulliad, yn trafod gorchmynion,
ac yna’n trafod y rheoliadau
sy’n codi o’r gorchmynion, heb fod y cyfan
gerbron. Felly, mae’n
hen bryd i ni dyfu mas o hynny, ac rwy’n credu y
dylai’r Cadeirydd ddweud rhywbeth ar y pwynt yna.
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: I agree with that,
Chair. It’s rather an unfortunate situation when any
legislative committee or parliamentary body, such as the Assembly,
discusses orders and then discusses regulations arising from those
orders without having them in front of it. So, it’s time that
we grew out of that and I think that the Chair should say something
on that point.
|
[128]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Rwy’n cytuno,
Dafydd.
|
Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree,
Dafydd.
|
[129] I agree. So, if
we can—. I don’t think we need to be in any way
overbearing on this, but we will make that observation when it
comes to the floor and then perhaps consider whether we need to
continue doing that if it keeps on happening. Because ideally, we
would see the accompanying documents here in front of us as we do
it. Although, we have had, Sam, the assurance that not only have
they been seen, they do exist and we thoroughly expect them to be
there. In which case, fine; we will stand up and say it’s
good to see them and it would’ve been good to have had them
together at one point.
|
[130] Lord
Elis-Thomas: Have you actually seen them, to make sure that
they exist?
|
[131] Mr Mason:
I have seen them, yes.
|
[132] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Okay. Well, thank you. In that case,
we’re content to note that with those comments and action
point.
|
15:41
|
Papur i’w
Nodi
Paper to Note
|
[133] Huw
Irranca-Davies: We move on to item 5, which is the paper to
note. It’s the correspondence from the Chair of the External
Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee in response to our
committee’s call for their views in relation to the inquiry.
Now, we have that letter there—if I can just find it. At the
moment, it’s simply to note, but David Rees, the Chairman,
draws our attention in particular to their findings in chapters 9,
10, 11 and 12 of their report, ‘Implications for Wales of
leaving the European Union’, so we’ve brought hard
copies along.
|
[134] Dai
Lloyd: [Inaudible.]
|
[135] Huw
Irranca-Davies: There we are. Well, thank you for that. Thank
you to our team. Are we happy to note that correspondence? Thank
you very much.
|
15:42
|
Cynnig o dan Reol
Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o Weddill y
Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public
from the Remainder of the Meeting
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o
weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog
17.42(vi).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in
accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Motion moved.
|
[136] Huw Irranca-Davies: If Members are
content, we will now move into private session. Content? Thank
you.
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
15:42. The public part of the meeting ended at
15:42.
|