RT HON PAUL MURPHY MP, MR ALAN COGBILL AND MR JOHN WILLIAMS

11 MARCH 2008

  Q1 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the Welsh Affairs Committee. Secretary of State, could you introduce yourself and your colleagues for the record, please?

Mr Murphy: Thank you, Chairman. Paul Murphy, Secretary of State for Wales, Alan Cogbill is the Director of the Wales Office and John Williams is the Deputy Director and the Head of Policy at the Wales Office. I am pleased to be with you today. I looked at the last time I spoke in this capacity and it was in October 2002. It may well be that the advice I was given in those days would have come from yourself when you were in a different capacity. It is good to be with the Members of the Committee again. I was at one time a member of it myself from 1987 to 1988 and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I am sure that in the business of the Committee today we all see that there has been quite a change in the role of my office and of the Wales Office generally. The other day I read the evidence I gave to this Committee in 1999. I just hope that when I see the answers to your questions today they are not too similar to the ones I gave in 1999!

  Q2  Chairman: Thank you for coming to see us so soon after your return to the Wales Office. Could I correct the record and say that I was your special adviser in 1999. You have alluded to the fact that you have returned to the position of Secretary of State. In 2002 you left it for Northern Ireland. How has the role changed since that time?

  Mr Murphy: You are right, it was 1999 that you gave me the advice. How has it changed? The political landscape has changed in Wales and that has presented a new challenge to the holder of my office and to the Wales Office generally. As we all know, we now have a coalition in Cardiff and that means that there is a different way of working because of coming to terms with something that we have never had before in quite the same way, although there was a Liberal Democrat coalition before. There has been a lot of debate and discussion and controversy as to the nature of the new coalition. As far as I am concerned, the Labour Party made its mind up at its conference. My own belief is that the Welsh Assembly Government has settled since all that controversy and we can probably talk about that later. The second difference is that there is much more legislative work to do for the Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office insofar as the 2006 Government of Wales Act is now operating and it means that there is a tremendous amount of work to do on policy and on drafting and on negotiating with the Ministers in Cardiff, my own colleagues as Ministers here in Whitehall, with yourselves and other Members of Parliament, not to mention the Members of the Assembly themselves who deal with these issues. The third change from when we started and when I gave the evidence back in 1999 particularly is an understanding of devolution in Whitehall, which I hope has certainly improved since those days. It is a changed job in those respects. In others the essence of the job remains the same and that is representing Wales in here, in the Cabinet, amongst Government, it means representing the Government in Wales and all the negotiating and diplomatic duties that fall upon the holder of this office in ensuring that there is a good relationship between governments both ends of the M4 and also, of course, the need to deal with issues that arise from time to time.

  Q3  Chairman: In 2002 it was decided that the position of Secretary of State would no longer be full time. We have now returned pretty well back to that situation now, although you have quite important additional duties. Is it the case that Whitehall has understood that we need a full-time Secretary of State and that that role, with the additional responsibilities as Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Local Government and the Regions and your position as Chair of the British-Irish Council, indicate how important devolution in the whole of the United Kingdom is in a way that in 2002 the Government did not quite understand?

  Mr Murphy: How you distribute Cabinet positions and the responsibility is entirely a matter for the Prime Minister, it is nothing to do with me. As it so happens, the Prime Minister decided that I would do this job without taking on another government department, but he gave me extra duties which are mostly related to the role of a territorial Secretary of State and dealing with devolution issues which affect Scotland and Northern Ireland as well, not to mention Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Local Government and the Regions. I think that is a considerable opportunity. As you know, I spent some five years as a Minister or Secretary of State in Northern Ireland and to be able to undertake this new work on Joint Ministerial Committees is very challenging and very interesting, but it involves, as does the British-Irish Council, dealing with administrations in Edinburgh, Belfast and Dublin too. That is a development which is to be welcomed. There may be an opportunity later to enlarge on the work of the Joint Ministerial Committees. In terms of the job that I do, I think it naturally fits into that.

  Q4  Chairman: It has been observed that the JMCs have been somewhat reactive or dormant. Do I take it from your observations that you are going to be much more proactive given the divergence of policy, particularly in areas of health and education between the various so-called territorial administrations?

  Mr Murphy: The answer is yes. I have now written to the administrations in Edinburgh and Belfast, I have talked to Alex Salmond with a view to meeting either the First Ministers or their representatives over the next month and when I return, having done that, to work out the detailed agenda for the meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee dealing with domestic issues rather than European ones because there is already a JMC Europe which has always met. You are quite right in saying that the domestic JMC has not met since 2002. I think there is an appetite amongst the First Ministers in Cardiff and the First Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland and their deputies to want to have these Joint Ministerial Committees. I am looking forward to reactivating those for two reasons. The first one is that they are there as a means by which you can settle disputes, but I think more interestingly and more importantly is to be able to share practice and talk about common aims and how we deal with things in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. That is supplemented by the British-Irish Council which meets in addition with the Irish Republic and also the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I chaired the talks in Northern Ireland which set the British-Irish Council up and I attended their meeting some weeks ago in Dublin where there has been some very interesting work done on dealing with drugs in the different administrations. So the combination of the British-Irish Council with all its lateral and trilateral meetings and also the JMC does mean that there will be a very interesting development in devolution in the United Kingdom or in these islands over the next number of months.

  Q5  Hywel Williams: You have explained to us how we might be able to draw some lessons from the experiences in Scotland, Ireland and the Channel Islands, et cetera. Can you give the Committee any inkling of what we might learn from your experience in Northern Ireland, especially on the health issue perhaps which is of particular concern to this Committee?

  Mr Murphy: I think there is an awful lot to learn from each other. From the Northern Ireland point of view, when I was Secretary of State there I was actually also directly ruling it because the Assembly was suspended at the time. I am glad that it is now back operating. It gave me an indicator of how services are operated in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland they operate the health service jointly with the social service's function there through a system of boards which I think have been reviewed as well. Local government has a different role in Northern Ireland. The way in which social services and health are related to each other in Northern Ireland was actually quite useful in comparing practice with other administrations. In Wales we were able to talk, for example, about telemedicine and how you could get out to more remote rural areas through the use of that type of technology. In England we can look at how waiting lists are dealt with and hopefully there are some comparisons there too. I think I would look at the positive nature of Joint Ministerial Committees rather than just about dispute resolution and being able to learn from each other. The size comparisons are quite interesting: Northern Ireland is smaller than us, Scotland is bigger than us and England is very big, but we can also learn from the Irish experience on health particularly. The combination of how they deal with health and social services in Northern Ireland is quite an interesting one which we could pursue.

  Q6  Hywel Williams: Are there lessons to be learned from other European countries? I am thinking of the borders between Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland. The Netherlands are particularly porous. Is anybody looking at those sorts of cross-border lessons? Would that be part of your brief, perhaps working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

  Mr Murphy: It sounds very interesting. The Prime Minister has not quite extended my role to those countries. I do recall Mr Alun Michael and I going to that region many years ago when we were in opposition to look at the area there which had been affected by coal and steel cuts and losses of jobs and we were able to compare notes on cross-border working there. I certainly would not dismiss that. Far from it. I think it is a very good idea. I would hope that the opportunity would be there for me to do it, but I am sure that the Welsh Assembly Government itself is looking at those comparisons. I know that you are embarking soon on an inquiry into cross-border issues. There is no reason in this wide world why we cannot learn from our neighbours on Continental Europe in this.

  Q7  Alun Michael: We are all in new territory regarding both Legislative Competence Orders and how we deal with legislation in the new arrangements. I think the proposition is that you might review the arrangements there and that we might have a longer discussion with the Members of this Committee, which has already expressed some concerns on the way these things are done. Primarily our job is to help to make the process work well. That is an obligation for yourself and your office and us and people in the Assembly. I will take first the example of the Planning Bill where the content of the amendments in my view was fine. Obviously a lot of work went on between officials in the Assembly and in your department and in the Department for Communities. The process left out Parliament. The briefing we had at one stage from Jane Davidson was interesting in terms of wider planning issues but not very relevant to the Bill. I asked for a briefing from the Department of Communities as a member of that Committee. I had it, it was useful and I was happy with the amendments, but it was terribly last minute and did not give an opportunity for MPs on the Committee, never mind those not on the Committee, to really understand what propositions were coming forward when the Welsh planning system is different from that in England. That is an example where it seems to me that a very much improved way of dealing with things is essential. The second one is with Legislative Competence Orders. This Committee has said that the approach to processing Orders is "haphazard". It has been a bit of a nightmare, although goodwill on all sides has made it work. We also understand that to some extent "Whitehall clearance" is unclear. There is almost a suggestion that some Whitehall departments are told simply to let Wales have what it wants rather than engaging with the implications which our cross-border inquiries are already showing do need a degree of scrutiny. There are some very complicated procedures. Would it be your intention to review the way those work and perhaps have a discussion with this Committee about the way that the Legislative Competence Orders work and the way that we can fulfil our responsibilities in terms of scrutiny in a way that is positive but much clearer than the situation we find ourselves in at the moment?

  Mr Murphy: Yes is the answer to that. I talked about it when I appeared before the Ministry of Justice Select Committee and I have thought about it since. I think it is absolutely vital for us to sit back in a couple of months' time perhaps and have a look at how things have gone since this new quite complicated procedure has come into operation. On the complexity of it, I understand that it is not easy, but on the other hand our own procedures in this Palace of Westminster for dealing with legislation are pretty complicated too to the outsider, but we have got used to it. So it is about getting used to a new system, but in so doing the teething problems, which include the points you made about the Planning Bill once amendments were made after the introduction, sometimes are unavoidable because things happen, but you have got to try to avoid them to the best of your ability because all of us here want the best possible scrutiny for LCOs and for framework powers which does involve Welsh MPs in the House of Commons looking at these things. Due to the importance of the various functions that we are devolving to the National Assembly it means a heavy responsibility lies on all our shoulders. Before I took this job on I spoke on at least two occasions in the House of Commons arguing that the scrutiny was insufficient, but my predecessor Mr Peter Hain certainly brought in some changes for the better in dealing with scrutiny of this sort of legislation. So the answer is yes, I think it is very important and also to involve your Committee in such a reflective overview as to what has gone on. I am sure we might touch on issues of capacity, for example, with this Committee. You are doing a great deal of work in addition to the important work of looking at the inquiries which you have to do, including the one on cross-border issues. The additional business of having to deal with this legislation obviously puts a big burden on each and every one of you. We need to look at how that can be dealt with in the years ahead.

  Q8  Mr David Jones: Do you not find it paradoxical that Legislative Competence Orders receive a great deal of scrutiny both at the Assembly and before this Committee whereas the framework powers, most recently in the Planning Bill, really had very perfunctory scrutiny indeed? It was not debated at Second Reading and in the Bill Committee it was less than an hour. Do you think that maybe there is some scope for framework powers to receive an additional layer of scrutiny possibly from this Committee so that both means of devolving powers to the Assembly are regarded as having fulfilled that function of scrutiny which I think everybody requires?

  Mr Murphy: In the review that we will undertake reasonably soon high on our agenda should be discussing whether in fact framework power legislation is sufficiently scrutinized. There will be occasions when, as in every Bill, not just dealing with Wales, you will get government amendments put on to that legislation as it passes through Parliament, whether in this House or in the other place. The very first Bill I served on was the one dealing with the poll tax. I remember 1,000 government amendments were placed on that Bill and that is not including the Opposition amendments that went on it, but that is not a good situation. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but you should try to avoid it as much as possible. Although what they now call framework powers have been around ever since I have been involved as a Minister, it was a more straightforward way of getting Welsh legislation in the old days instead of getting a separate Welsh Bill where you had to bid for the Bill with Cabinet colleagues and you would usually get about one a year if you were lucky. There were some very important ones by the way but nonetheless there were other issues, so you were piggybacked on another Bill and got Welsh measures through. I still think there is a role for that. When I spoke on the floor of the House some months ago and during the Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill I argued the case for as much scrutiny as possible, to give Members of this House of Commons particularly the opportunity to give it the fullest scrutiny. I know that some of the changes were about, for example, letting Members of Parliament know if there are Welsh parts of the Bill very early on and ensuring you have Welsh MPs involved in the Committee Stage. We have really got to look back at it now and see whether that is good enough or whether there are any extra measures needed to be taken to improve the scrutiny. I am conscious of the fact that if the framework powers scrutiny came to you as a Committee that would increase the burden of work even more that you have to do. We need to work through it though because I think that is a very important role of Parliament, not to obstruct, but sometimes legislation can be sloppy and it needs to be reworded as it has got to stand up in the courts. There can be important issues which, as you discussed with LCOs and obviously for framework powers as well, need discussion. I agree it is something we need to look at when we take on this review in a few months' time.

  Q9  Chairman: Thank you for that. I take it from your observations that when you come to speak to us in the summer about your annual report that would be a good opportunity for such a review to look at our experiences and your experiences in relation to LCOs and framework powers?

  Mr Murphy: That seems good timing to me.

  Q10  Mark Pritchard: On 27 February during Welsh Questions you said, "... the National Health Service is genuinely national to the United Kingdom and we should not allow cross-border issues to deflect from that basic principle." Do you think having no parking charges at hospitals from 1 April in Wales whilst having car parking charges just a few miles across the border in England maintains and upholds that principle?

  Mr Murphy: Devolution is precisely about being able to do things differently if generally that is what they want to do. The Welsh Assembly Government decided that they wanted to abolish car parking charges in Welsh hospitals and at the end of the day that is a matter for them. The issue then is how does the English health service respond to that? Is it a matter for the health service in England? I do not think it is. I understand that the trusts themselves are given guidelines by the Secretary of State for Health and it is up to the trusts in England what they want to do with regard to parking charges. There will be constant examples where policy issues are different which can be taken into account in terms of the devolutional settlement. Let us say substantial charges were brought in at the point of use in the health service, some in the United Kingdom, which goes fundamentally against the philosophy of the National Health Service, would that be a matter for discussion? Then you come back to your Joint Ministerial Committees. That might then be the point where you could raise those issues. Whatever the rights and wrongs of car parking in hospitals—and there are financial implications, there are control implications and all the rest of it—it would not be a fundamental issue to divide England from Wales. If the example I gave you was ever to come up then it strikes me that that is something which a JMC would have to look at because the United Kingdom's overall health service would be affected. At the moment if you are a British citizen you can go to any part of the United Kingdom and receive free health care on the National Health Service and that is right. If that were to be jeopardized it would have to be a matter of dispute resolution it seems to me. Outside of those fundamental issues it is a case of "That's devolution, guv" and it is up to them at the end of the day.

  Q11  Mark Pritchard: Is there not a fundamental principle that the financial settlement for Wales can either encourage convergence of policy or divergence of policy? For example, in health in Wales there is an in-patient target waiting list time of 22 weeks and just a few miles across the border a target time of 18 weeks. So whilst you point out it is a devolved matter, the financial settlement for Wales is not a devolved matter. If the divergence of policy on these issues is being driven by financial constraints and scarce resources then it is clearly a matter for Westminster.

  Mr Murphy: I think the issue then becomes a cross-border one. If the arrangements for funding the health service are different within Wales and England and they are in the way in which money is distributed, how it is dealt with through the structure of the health service, there are foundation hospitals emerging on the English side of the border and a different regime on the Welsh but inevitably a necessary use of health facilities either side of the border. Last week in Welsh Questions I was quite surprised to read, for example, that 19,000 English patients are registered in Wales and 16,000 or 17,000 Welsh patients in England. That is a lot of people who are registered either side of the border. When it is in more populist areas of the border such as the north-east of Wales or in the north-west of England then it becomes an important and a serious issue. The way to deal with that is as they deal with it at the moment and that is to ensure that they have another look at the protocol which has been established so that they have a proper working arrangement which takes into account the financial side as well and the waiting list side but which does not stop the sensible use of going across a border in order to use facilities. When I was Northern Ireland Secretary we were developing going across sovereign borders within Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to deal with essential cross-border issues which were sensible. It seems to me that we can resolve these things as well. I know, for example, that the Department of Health and Edwina Hart and her department in Cardiff are indeed going to look at this protocol again. It gets more complicated because the funding arrangements have been quite different.

  Q12  Mark Pritchard: On sovereign issues, we have heard today about the Government consulting on swearing allegiance perhaps to Her Majesty the Queen or even to a country. If the consultations by the Attorney General lead to swearing allegiance to a country, which I would not support, I would swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, should the people of Wales swear allegiance to Wales or to the United Kingdom?

  Mr Murphy: That is a very big issue to respond to without having read the report yet. I think we would have to reflect on the report. At the end of the day, as I said in the Welsh Affairs debate last week, Wales is a part of the Union, our head of state is our Queen and so allegiance is to the head of the Union, to the head of our state, which in this case is Her Majesty the Queen. There are other issues in that report which might touch upon the new devolved system in our country and clearly we need to have a look at that in some detail. There are probably more complicated issues in Northern Ireland on that where people can hold both a British and an Irish passport simultaneously and people can hold an Irish passport in Northern Ireland and be part of the United Kingdom. An Irish Republican swearing allegiance to the head of the British state might be problematic. I have only heard it on the radio this morning and my memory was that such a swearing of an oath would not be compulsory but would be a matter for the individual concerned. My only comment is that the head of our state is the Queen, she is head of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and if there is any swearing of allegiance, as we do when we take our oath as Members of Parliament, it would be to her. There are other aspects of that which require careful reading and which could well impinge on the devolution settlements.

  Q13  Hywel Williams: We heard in a previous session that 14,000 Welsh people are registered with GPs in England and 19,000 in the other direction. You may recall I asked you a question at the Welsh Affairs debate as to whether it might be possible to have a set of objective statistics on a vast array of health issues, just some numbers as to what the traffic across the border is either in treatments by GPs or more specialist services. Is it possible that we could be informed about that given the way that politicians are sometimes, understandably, seduced by the issues of the moment such as car parking or whatever? It would inform the debate very effectively.

  Mr Murphy: I think there is a case for looking more carefully at the statistics. I will certainly try and ensure that you are provided with those statistics and we are too in the Wales Office. We would have to liaise with the Welsh Assembly Government for those. I am not sure that you would be able to do a completely effective cross-border inquiry unless you were provided with the relevant statistics and I think it is important that you have them.[1]

  Q14 Nia Griffith: You have described yourself as a "devo-realist". Can you explain just a little bit more about why you have chosen that term and what difference you would see between that and a "devo-sceptic"?

  Mr Murphy: What is in a name? They would have called me an awful lot more in 1978 when I was Treasurer of the Labour No Assembly Campaign, but that is a long time ago now, the world has changed since then. My view is that devolution is now a settled part of our political landscape in this country. It is up to all of us to ensure that it delivers good services for the people of Wales. I am more concerned with whether people get good hospitals and schools, jobs and a good environment and all the rest of it, which are issues which the Assembly deals with and we are constantly looking at constitutional issues. I do not dismiss constitutional issues. Far from it. I just think that all of us are more concerned about those issues. Nevertheless, the "One Wales" document has as part of it the inquiry by Sir Emyr Jones Parry on a convention looking into the possibility of a referendum on further powers. That body must now be allowed to get on with its work and see if they can test the waters on that and see what happens. In the meantime we have got to make the Government of Wales Act work, we have got to make the system we have been talking about this morning work. Devo-realism means we are not here to question the existence of an Assembly, we are not here to obstruct things, but here to ensure that it works for the benefit of Welsh people. That includes us MPs who represent Welsh constituencies and MPs generally in the House who have an interest in these matters. Understanding what matters to people we represent ultimately is what devo-realism means, but it is not in any way being obstructionist.

  Q15  Mr David Jones: Secretary of State, I want to refer to the same speech you made before the Grand Committee. I am not entirely sure you would have made it that way if you had known what was coming. One thing you said was, "... devolution is about partnership between our Government in Parliament, the Assembly in government in Cardiff and our local authority colleagues." How would you describe the current status of that partnership, and how do you feel that you can develop that partnership in future?

  Mr Murphy: I think it is all about the services that we provide. For example, if we are dealing with child poverty, I think you can only deal with something like that by the British Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and local government in Wales working together to achieve a certain objective. There may be different political views as to how we get there, but no one around this table, whatever party they represent, would be opposed to the elimination of child poverty. So it is by working together as politicians in the UK, in Wales and in local government that we can deal with it. It is also about improving relations between MPs and Assembly Members. They have not always been brilliant in the last year because of controversies that have occurred, particularly in my own party. I do see a genuine rapprochement there now and talking to people is the most important thing we can do, ie you talking to your colleagues in the equivalent committees in Cardiff and all of us ensuring that we have the best relationship we can with Assembly Members. We all represent the same people at the end of the day. Our constituents look to us to ensure that their lives are improved. I think it is really about concentrating on the service delivery between us and understanding we have all got roles to play. For example, during the raging controversy before the coalition last year there was a lot of talk about Members of Parliament up here representing Welsh constituencies, we are all in it for ourselves, we do not want to see our numbers reduced and all that sort of stuff without understanding that our role is important, ie scrutinising the legislation that we have been talking about today, questioning myself as a Ministers and other Ministers, taking part in legislation which will affect the whole of the United Kingdom and certainly affect Wales and all the other things that we do as MPs in our constituencies. So it is about ensuring people understand our importance. I do not say that in any pejorative or pompous way. I am talking about the significance of MPs. We should understand the role that Assemblies have to do. Sometimes we do not always let go on issues that for many years were issues which were a matter for the British Government but which are now devolved, so we have to understand each other's role. Also, it is the opportunity of being able to come together when there is a divergence which we will try to resolve.

  Q16  Mr David Jones: What about the third member of that partnership, local government? Do you not have a concern, which I confess I do, that the thrust of devolution at the moment is increasingly not only to devolve powers from Parliament to the Assembly but also to suck up powers from local government to the Assembly? I am thinking in terms of the Planning Bill which we have just discussed, the affordable housing LCO, the domiciliary care LCO, all of which appear to be increasing the power of the Assembly at the expense of the local government.

  Mr Murphy: If it is a question of working together, the Assembly and local government, it does not matter at the end of the day if it is the best way of achieving whatever the goal is and the service delivery there, the important thing is that local government and the Assembly work together on getting the results from that policy which delivers the goal. I think there is a case for local government and the Welsh Assembly Government to meet as regularly as possible. I have met recently with the Welsh Local Government Association and its leaders and I have met also Andrew Davis and I will be meeting Brian Gibbons, both of whom have responsibility in their different ways for local government in Wales. My point to everybody there is that the best way in which you can achieve success, particularly since one of the merits of devolution has always been the accessibility of Ministers and of government, is for more and more contact. My experience in 11 years as a Minister, in entirely territorial ministries as they are called and particularly in Northern Ireland but it applies to Wales too, is that the less you talk with each other the worse it will get, but the more you talk the better it will get. I think there is a case for improved relations between us all, local, British, Welsh governments and assemblies and parliaments. That is really my plea in this office, let us talk an awful lot more with each other about getting to the goals all of us want.

  Q17  Mr David Jones: You said at Welsh Questions the week before last that the benefits of the devolved Assembly must be set alongside the benefits that we receive from membership of the United Kingdom. Could you tell the Committee what you perceive to be the main benefits of each, of membership of the United Kingdom and the devolved Assembly, and do you perceive any disbenefits?

  Mr Murphy: I certainly do not see any disbenefits in the current arrangement in that, first of all, I think by being part of the Union we are stronger as Welsh people. If we were to ask Welsh people what they thought of membership of the Union, I have not the slightest doubt that overwhelmingly they would want to remain part of it. I am not for one second saying that there is not a genuine political case for those who believe in independence, but I do not. It does mean to say that even those who agree with independence would understand the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom as well. Independence could be a long-term goal for some people, but I am sure in the short and medium term even people who believe in that would accept that economically, politically, socially and culturally there are huge benefits by being part of that union. Financially, of course, no matter what you look at, in terms of being one of the strongest economies in the world, being part of a British Government which has the most professional Army in the world in my view and being part of a union which believes the health service has been a main part of our basis of government no matter what party you are in and so on, there are issues there which I think would resonate very strongly amongst Welsh people. That in no way denigrates the fact that we are all Welsh people and proud of it and that devolution, far from weakening the Union, can strengthen it in that it recognises the diversity within the United Kingdom. I believe the recognition of diversity, the accessibility of government and the accountability of government in a Welsh context is much better than it was when it was a Secretary of State and just two Welsh Ministers. The opportunity for people in Wales to be able to link to a government in Cardiff I think is very important. I was talking recently to people from Cardiff University and I said to them, "You've got your own government down the road. You are one of the best universities not just in the country but in the world. Look at the way in which you could influence each other, how you can benefit as a university from the existence of a Welsh Assembly Government and Assembly but, at the same time, how the Assembly and the Assembly Government can benefit from one of the finest universities and draw on its expertise. How many English regions would like that opportunity?" Incidentally, if the English people in the regions wanted those benefits it would be a great service to English people too, but that is another issue.

  Q18  Mr David Jones: You have mentioned the work of the Joint Ministerial Committee already. Are you satisfied that the mechanisms that exist for relations between governments at various levels within the UK are sufficiently robust? How has the Labour/Plaid coalition of the Assembly changed the dynamics of this?

  Mr Murphy: I do not see any change in that respect in terms of the way in which we deal with Welsh Ministers on various issues from what it was at the time I was here before. Certainly, whether it is agriculture, culture or transport, which are held by Plaid Ministers, it strikes me there is no difference in terms of how we deal with those Ministers or the Labour Ministers in the way we have to deal with legislation or relations between Cardiff and London and that is a good thing. Having met the Cabinet some weeks ago in Cardiff, I can tell you they were at one in wanting to ensure that there were good relations between the British Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, particularly in terms of working through the legislation but on other issues well. I really have not got any difficulties there even though, as you know, I opposed the coalition at the time. There were political reasons which I need not go into now, but the decision was taken by our respective parties on that and that is where we are. I have forgotten the first part of your question.

  Q19  Mr David Jones: I was just asking whether the structures were sufficiently robust.

  Mr Murphy: No, I do not think they are sufficient and that is why I think the revival of the JMCs and the work of the British-Irish Council are such that they will be able to give us an opportunity certainly to resolve disputes, but also to be able to share good practice.