§ 1. Mr. Simon HughesTo ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in support of the retention of Montgomeryshire as a principal local authority.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones)Since publication of the White Paper on local government in Wales, we have received more than 280 letters, more than 4,300 pre-printed leaflets and a petition carrying 16 signatures in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority.
§ Mr. HughesWill the Minister join me in congratulating the Standing Committee considering the Local Government (Wales) Bill, which voted by a significant majority to give unitary status to Montgomeryshire—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a Standing Committee that has not yet reported to the House. I am sure that he knows that, until a Committee has reported, we do not discuss its proceedings on the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. HughesWill the Minister respond to press reports that there is now a significant majority of opinion among relevant hon. Members on both sides of the House in favour of the retention of Montgomeryshire as a unitary authority together with the other two parts of the county of Powys? Will he ensure that that opinion is sustained as the majority opinion of the House at later stages when the matter is considered? Those involved can then plan, on the basis of unitary status, to give the best of services to the people of that historic and significant county in the centre of Wales.
§ Mr. JonesMy right hon. Friends and I remain convinced that the Bill provides the best arrangements for local government in Wales, particularly for Powys and for Montgomeryshire. There will be much more decision making by local councillors in Montgomeryshire than at present, and that will be a better arrangement. Of course, we will reflect further before Report.
§ Mr. Jonathan EvansIs my hon. Friend prepared to consider further the issue of financial autonomy, which causes much concern in the county of Montgomeryshire and also in the two counties that I represent, Breconshire and Radnorshire? Will he tell members of the Committee whether he is prepared to address the issues in an open-minded way?
§ Mr. JonesWe have already addressed the issues in an open-minded way, and the proposals for the shire committees—especially for Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire—represent a far better arrangement than exists at present. The authorities would be provided with a block grant, probably on the basis of a standard spending assessment-style arrangement, in respect of 100 per cent. of their finances. That is the best way forward.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesIt is a pity that the Secretary of State, who has responsibility for these matters, is not answering these questions, because this is important. Any proposals that the Under-Secretary may have for strengthening financial devolution will cause considerable resentment, particularly in the boroughs, and any gain that he gets from 3 devolution in Montgomery will be more than offset by opposition elsewhere. May I press the hon. Gentleman on the point about Montgomeryshire? A substantial majority of Welsh Members of all parties represented in the House are of the opinion that the proposals for Powys are wrong. If the majority view is that Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire should remain as unitary authorities, will the Under-Secretary accept the wishes of Welsh Members of Parliament?
§ Mr. JonesI do not think that the hon. Gentleman is factually right in his claim about the majority of all political parties wanting to go down the road that he suggests. The financial and other arrangements that we propose are far better and they are there for every part of Wales. Other parts of Wales besides the three historic counties of Powys could well choose to avail themselves of the arrangements for decentralisation that we are building in. The new arrangements will come to be regarded as much superior throughout Wales.