Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2011

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving his explanation of the order. He said that the numbers were small and that it was more or less a tidying-up operation in terms of the boundaries.

In October 2010, the Boundary Commission for Wales submitted a report that affected the constituencies of Brecon and Radnorshire, where 18 electors were affected. In January 2011, the Boundary Commission submitted a further three reports. Those affected the boundaries of Ogmore, Pontypridd, Cardiff North, Cardiff South and Penarth, and the Vale of Glamorgan. Again, small numbers are affected, except in Pontypridd, where the number is 600-odd. By that time, we were in the run-up to the Assembly elections, so there was no time to implement the changes, but we hope that the changes in the order before us today will be ready for the 2016 Welsh Assembly elections.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Notes says that,

“the Order is being brought forward in good time for the next Welsh Assembly elections”.

Paragraph 9.1 says:

“The changes being made … will be applicable for the next elections for the National Assembly for Wales, currently scheduled for 2016”.

Although this all seems very straightforward, I am sure the Minister, who mentioned it briefly, is aware that there is a big row brewing over this. We need clarification.

As I say, it seems straightforward enough but I need to ask whether the Minister is aware of the differences between this order and what the Secretary of State for Wales said, on record in the House of Commons, in answer to a question on 11 May 2011 from the Member of Parliament for Carmarthen East and Dynevor. He asked:

“Given the Labour party’s opposition to decoupling Westminster and National Assembly constituency boundaries, would it not make sense to base the make-up of the fifth National Assembly on 30 regional and 30 constituency Assembly Members?”.

The Secretary of State’s response was:

“That is a very interesting thought. Hon. Members are well aware that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 broke the link between Assembly constituencies and parliamentary constituencies. I have agreed that we need to look carefully at the implications of having constituency boundaries relating to different areas and regions for UK and Assembly elections … I am taking the hon. Gentleman’s question as a recommendation that we have 30 first-past-the-post seats and 30 elected on a list system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/5/11; col. 1148.]

She said that she is looking at that suggestion. That response is a little different from what we have before us today.

On 30 July the Secretary of State, again answering questions relating to the boundaries, had a meeting with the Welsh Affairs Committee, at which my honourable friend Owen Smith asked her whether it was true that Welsh officials had,

“recently met the Boundary Commission and political parties in Wales and said at that meeting that they were looking for a legislative vehicle to address changing the boundaries of the Assembly constituencies in Wales?”.

In her reply the Secretary of State said:

“As far as I am concerned, we will have to look at that”.

This is very confusing. I do not know whether the Minister has had time to look at the Western Mail this morning. I am glad to see that he has. He will have read the headline:

“First Minister’s startling appeal to David Cameron bypasses Cheryl Gillan”.

The Western Mail says:

“First Minister Carwyn Jones has bypassed Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan and gone directly to the Prime Minister in a bid to defuse an explosive row over how AMs are elected”.

The Minister mentioned that briefly at the end of his speech. What we need in Wales is clarification that the order before us will be used for the election in 2016, and for the Minister to confirm that any changes to any of the systems in Wales will be as a result of the wishes of the Welsh people. This is a big row in Wales. I hope that the Minister appreciates how important these issues are, and that he will confirm that our arrangements today will be met in the 2016 elections.

[Baroness Randerson]

Noble Lords will forgive me if my comments are very brief, for obvious reasons; it is not easy for me to project my voice today. In my first points I will concentrate on what is in this order, not on what is not. Having read it, I confirm—and agree with the Minister—that the order appears to affect very few people and does not make significant changes. There were no representations against it to the Boundary Commission. It decouples the Westminster and Assembly seats. I ask the Minister to confirm that such decoupling exists satisfactorily in Scotland and is a workable solution.

I know that the Labour Party is concerned about the reduction in the number of constituencies for the general election. We should all welcome the fact that the number of constituencies is maintained in this order, which will not affect Assembly elections and, therefore, the total number of Assembly Members. I am aware of the First Minister’s letter to the Prime Minister asking that there should be no change to the system, and it is clear that this is the default position that is put in place by this order. The noble Baroness has referred to exchanges in the House of Commons; Peter Hain MP has made it clear that he would like Wales to move to a situation where each constituency is represented by two Assembly Members, which would do away with the proportionality of the system in Wales. That is something which would case a great deal of concern across other parties and the electorate, because that was the settlement that was put to the electorate at the time when the Assembly was established. It is therefore very useful for us to have a clear default option that—whatever the discussions that are going on or the thoughts of the Secretary of State for Wales, and whatever the thoughts of the First Minister of Wales might be—it is important that we acknowledge that this is a settled situation ready for the next Assembly elections in 2016.

Wales: Council Tax

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I indicate to the noble Lord that the Government are not being prescriptive. They recognise that the consequentials that were made available are for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly to determine. While additional powers are being conferred on the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Scotland Bill, the noble Lord will be aware that there has been recent agreement to set up the Silk Commission, which will look initially at the financial accountability of the Assembly and, having reported on that, move to looking at its powers.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as the years go on, the strains imposed by the Barnett formula are beginning to show in the Welsh financial settlement? As a result, for example, education in Wales receives £600 less funding per pupil per year than in England. Would that not be a good way in which the money concerned could be spent?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am sure that the Welsh Government are getting plenty of helpful suggestions as to how that money might be spent. I sat in on the debate on the Barnett formula initiated earlier in the year by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and listened carefully to it. The Government have made it clear that their priority is to reduce the deficit and get our public finances in order. Therefore, any change to the system of devolution funding must await stabilisation of public finances. However, as I have already indicated, separate bilateral discussions are continuing between the Government and the Welsh Government on the proposals arising from the Holtham Commission.