Short-term Lettings

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Of course there is a case for clear regulation, but does the Minister agree that Airbnb and others, since they are popular, are meeting a gap in the market?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on that. It is nevertheless important, as he acknowledged, that they satisfy certain conditions. Those that join the Short Term Accommodation Association sign up to a code of conduct. That has been circulated to all houses in Westminster, with which it has a particularly close association. It is the aim of the Short Term Accommodation Association to roll that out nationally.

Brexit: Welsh Economy

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, that is a constructive and useful suggestion; I shall take it back. It would be very useful in relation to Wales. The Secretary of State will obviously want to consider it.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that Wales will be fully compensated for the loss of Objective 1 status and the regional benefits that go with it?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the importance of cohesion funding. As things stand, there is no guarantee that Wales will qualify for Objective 1 funding in the next round —in many ways, one hopes that it does not; it is not a badge of pride. In relation to the future of cohesion funding, he will be aware that the shared prosperity fund is being discussed on a UK basis, with full consultation with Wales to ensure that Welsh interests are properly protected.

Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2015

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

I, too, welcome the amendment order. I also welcome the work being carried out by the Welsh Government in their Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Bill. The order will help the Welsh Government to pass one of what they consider to be the few laws of its kind in the world. It is a Bill which will put sustainable development at the heart of public service governance in Wales. I also recognise that the Welsh Government see it as their commitment to pass on a better quality of life to their and my children and grandchildren.

The Welsh Government have recognised the systemic weaknesses in the present governance structures for sustainable development in Wales. The Bill will, or should, ensure that they set objectives that match the goals set out in it. The Bill allows the Welsh Government to address further the complexity and unintended consequences that arose from partnership working: overlap and duplication, resulting in increased costs in the planning process. Efforts had already been made in Wales to address this problem—but, even as recently as March 2014, Denbighshire Local Service Board identified 84 partners in the county that it was supposed to work with, and that was not a comprehensive list.

I also welcome the new well-being goals listed in the Bill and the common sense of purpose that they set out for public bodies in Wales. These goals and their descriptors should ensure that such bodies share responsibility for achieving the long-term, economic, social and environmental well-being of Wales.

Although I welcome the Bill now going through the Assembly, it smacks slightly of motherhood and apple pie—or perhaps I should refer to it as “ambitious”, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, did. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a couple of questions, echoing the first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. At exactly what stage is the Bill in the Assembly and to what extent has it been scrutinised there?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief and build on what my noble friend Lord Rowlands said; that is, I hope that this is the last measure of its kind—I will ask a question or two later as to progress in other legislative fields. I also echo the noble Baroness in saying that the Bill may be aspirational in that duties may be being laid on local authorities without the resources to accompany them.

When I saw on the Order Paper the rather grand title,

“Constitutional Law. Devolution, Wales. The Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2015”,

I eagerly rushed to find out more about it, and I hope that I am not being too critical when I say that it should perhaps have been the “Much Ado About Nothing” Order, since no one can possibly be against it and query whether the relevant resources will be given. I wish that the Assembly could have acted within the spirit of what has now been agreed, because the 2006 Act seems to have been in a very different context and a very long time ago. Now the context is very different: one of reserved powers rather than the conferring of specific powers. This, of course, therefore makes it a rather convoluted process.

We have in the Chamber looked at some of these questions at some length during proceedings on the last Wales Act, which we have just passed. I assume that that legislation does not affect this order in any way. However, during the passage of what became the Act we talked about the need for a presumption in favour of the passage of competences to the Assembly, rather than to enumerate them here. I think I recall the Minister mentioning St David’s Day and saying that there would be another Bill, for which obviously there will be no time before the election. Perhaps she can indicate whether that new Bill will make this sort of order totally unnecessary in future, and comment on what stage has been reached in consultations on the proposed Bill, which presumably will now take a year or two because I cannot imagine anyone seriously being against it in spirit.

Wales Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and indeed throughout the numerous debates we have had on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Tyler started his response on this amendment by pointing out that all parties endorsed the agreement that led to votes at 16 in Scotland. I make it clear that I strongly appreciate the work that my noble friend has done over a very long period to raise awareness of, and develop a campaign generally on, votes at 16.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made the point that he would have preferred there to be wider powers for votes at 16, but he will understand that this question is best considered as part of the devolution of further powers to the Assembly, which is something which is being considered at this time, with a view to agreement and announcements by St David’s Day. He also asked about the precedent for future referenda. These amendments deal with the referenda provided for in the Bill. There are no further referenda planned in Wales. I point out to the noble Lord that the Welsh Government have not yet committed to this referendum. My view is that we should get this one out of the way first before thinking of further referenda.

My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to the ad hoc approach on this. I believe that our general approach to the devolution of further powers for the Assembly overcomes this problem. The noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Empey, also referred to the way in which the decisions were being made on votes at 16. There has been a response to the success of the votes at 16 in Scotland. There will be a full analysis of the impact of that in due course, but the success in Scotland has certainly sparked debate. Given the points that the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, made about the way in which we make constitutional decisions in this country, it is important that there is considerable public debate on this. One could say that that debate has started in Wales, in general terms, with the debate that was held in the Assembly in which an overwhelming majority of Assembly Members supported votes at 16.

The important thing is that the Wales Office and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales are leading on the four-party discussions, in which the options for the future of devolution in Wales are being considered—the reserved powers model and the scope of any additional powers. That will include, for example, the devolution of powers over election arrangements. I believe that we are embarking on a period of considerable reflection and debate on the nature of our democracy in the UK as a whole, but we have already taken steps to ensure that that debate takes place in Wales. In line with the commitment made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 19 September, we have made sure that Wales is at the heart of the debate on devolution.

My noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked two questions. One was related to the Electoral Commission’s concern about time constraints. I point out to him that the detail in the amendment ensures that time would be available in practice to assemble the electoral register required. The details in the amendment are based on a franchise Act of the Scottish Parliament. The Bill, as amended, will allow for 180 days for the Secretary of State to lay the order, plus the time that it would take to pass through both Houses of Parliament and the Assembly. There would be a pre-election period as well. If one takes all those periods of time together, they come to approximately seven months, which is the time that the Electoral Commission recommends for new legislation of this type. We believe that there is sufficient time to amass the register as required. My noble friend also asked about resources for awareness raising and so on. I assure him that we are well aware of the resource implications of this.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

On that point, clearly local authorities are subject to considerable constraints. To be “well aware” of the resource implications begs many questions, such as: what are the resource implications? What discussions have there been already with the relevant authorities and are the Government satisfied that this can be done without taking on any extra staff?

[Baroness Randerson]

I did not say to the noble Lord that this would be possible without taking on additional staff. It is important that the views of the Electoral Commission have been communicated to noble Lords because it is obviously involved in the discussions. The Assembly has made its views very clear on this and there are resource implications from its perspective as well because, as several noble Lords have made clear today, it is important to bear in mind that there has to be a period of awareness raising and education as well as the sheer issue of assembling a register.

Wales Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord does not seem to be entirely taking into account the considerable length of time that a convention would take. If it were going to do its job well, it would take a number of years to reach its conclusions and for those conclusions to be implemented. If there were to be an income tax referendum in Wales—I emphasise the word “if” because it is not a foregone conclusion—I hope it would take place before the outcome of any convention were decided.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

A constitutional convention or royal commission could take a very long time. However, the referendum on income tax may never happen at all as the First Minister has said that he is not very interested in this concession. Therefore, what appears on the face of it to be a significant step on the part of the Government may in fact not be a step at all because such a referendum in respect of income tax provisions is not likely to take place.

[Baroness Randerson]

If the noble Lord is telling us here today that the Labour Government in Wales have already decided that under no circumstances would they call an income-tax referendum, I am very disappointed. The line I have heard from the Labour Party up to now is that it is open-minded to it as long as there is progress on other issues connected with devolution. I want to take this opportunity to repeat that the UK Government believe that there should be a referendum on income tax powers in Wales as soon as possible. That is something we would strongly encourage in Wales. We regard this as a significant step in Welsh devolution because we are planning to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading on this with the intention that it should be used.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Role of National Assembly for Wales
All matters pertaining to the electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales contained in this Act shall be subject to agreement by the Assembly before implementation.”

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, Amendment 4 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Morgan. It states that all matters pertaining to National Assembly for Wales electoral arrangements contained in this Bill must be subject to Assembly agreement before implementation. It has been grouped with Amendment 5, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Wigley. It is more comprehensive than my amendment in that it extends to its constitution, structure, membership and elections and suggests that they should be decided by a vote of the whole Assembly by a majority of no less than two-thirds of voting Assembly Members.

I make only this comment on the two-thirds supermajority. I know there is apparently precedent for this, but I call on the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that traditionally in jurisdictions that require a two-thirds supermajority it has been a recipe for inertia. It has led to gridlock and immobilism. In this sort of matter, to impose the necessity for a two-thirds majority suggests that there will be no reform at all as it is very difficult to find an issue on which there is that level of majority, but I defer it. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me suggesting that it is almost certainly true.

I have been impressed by what the Minister has said thus far in respect of the two amendments which have been before us. She has shown a readiness to listen and, certainly, to respond. On the previous amendment, in particular, she argued that this is a matter that should be left to the Assembly because there is a consensus among the various parties in the Assembly. My submission in respect of this amendment is that it is certainly a matter that should be left to the Assembly. I would have thought that there is no doubt whatever that all parties in the Assembly would agree to this. If the Minister is prepared to say at this stage that she will follow what she said in relation to the previous amendment in relation to this one and that she will move an appropriate amendment at Third Reading to let the Assembly decide its own electoral arrangements, I can save this House a lot of time by sitting down and saying, “Thank you very much”.

[Lord Elis-Thomas]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I have given the Minister the opportunity to truncate my speech, but perhaps I should set out the terms of the amendment, otherwise I shall be truncating myself. My broad proposition is that we are devolutionists now. We may disagree on the pace of devolution and on the terminus, the end station, of devolution, but there is a broad spirit of agreement, particularly post the Scottish referendum, and a new spirit of seeking to allow the assemblies of the nations and of the parts of the United Kingdom to make their own decisions—or, as they would say in colonial times, to make their own mistakes. In some cases, central government has shown itself reluctant to relax the reins, and this matter has, thus far, been one of them, but I nurture the hope that, consistent with her previous responses, the Minister will make a more positive response to this.

The proposition is simple and clear. It is absurd that in Westminster we should be laying down rules on how the devolved Assembly in Wales should organise its own elections, irrespective of its views. Surely it is the expert in this field. It has the experience of fighting elections on the current rules and we should listen to it with respect. If decisions, at least for the moment, are not left to the Assembly, as is suggested in the other group, at least its agreement should be necessary to any proposals. Even our local authorities have a degree of discretion currently not left to the Assembly.

It is difficult to see how this can be opposed, save on grounds of inertia, as there would surely be no opposition in the Assembly itself. There is a taste otherwise of “Westminster knows best”, from high to low, delivering electoral arrangements like tablets of stone to a grateful Assembly. Surely we should all accept that we are dealing with a mature Assembly? I am sure that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would be the first to concede that there were some initial teething problems, but now the Assembly has settled down very well indeed, and has gained the support and approval of the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales. They should be allowed to decide for themselves how they wish to be elected. Currently there is not even the statutory obligation to consult them on these arrangements.

Do we really know best? Do we wish to continue to impose our wisdom on the Assembly? Have we no trust in the Assembly on such matters, which should be wholly within its own domain? I leave this question to the Minister and the House: how can it be reasonable not to allow the Assembly to make decisions on such electoral arrangements, not as a matter of generosity, but as a matter of law? I beg to move.

[Lord Elis-Thomas]

I thank my friend the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for continuing to move his amendment. I was afraid at one moment that he was seeking to withdraw it before he had actually proposed it, and that would have been entirely disorderly.

I am delighted with the progress of our discussions today. I had a list of three issues that I wished to raise on behalf of myself and my noble friend Lord Wigley, and our colleagues of all parties in the National Assembly. This is the third issue. The response to the previous two has been extremely good, so I am expecting an even better response to this one.

In addition to the points that had already been covered on the reserved powers order and on the recognition for a decision involving tax-raising powers reflecting the agreement of the people of Wales, part of the resolution that was passed unanimously by the National Assembly two weeks ago was a call on the UK Government to give the National Assembly the power to determine its electoral arrangements. The Minister indicated in an earlier response that this might indeed be a matter that would be looked at in the great deliberation before St David’s Day. We are very keen that these arrangements should be agreed before the next Assembly elections so that we are able to benefit from any changes that will take place.

I will call in aid no greater authority than my friend in the Assembly, and a neighbour of my family in the Vale of Glamorgan, the leader of the Opposition. He is not yet the right honourable Andrew RT Davies, but no doubt will be at some stage. He argued strongly on this resolution and said:

“I find it bizarre that we have an institution that has primary legislative competence and that Ministers are appointed by the Crown, but, ultimately, the electoral arrangements for this institution do not reside in this institution. I do believe that that would be a relatively simple Act to undertake”.

I hope the government Front Bench in this House will agree with that analysis.

This issue was also discussed more recently last week, when we had the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on the inquiry into the disqualification from membership of the Assembly. Both the First Minister and the very distinguished Deputy Presiding Officer, David Melding, agreed entirely with the view that the Assembly should indeed be in charge of its own electoral arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elis-Thomas]

What we have here are two amendments, appropriately grouped together, but with two different principles. The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend calls for powers on electoral arrangements and constitutional aspects to be devolved to the Assembly through Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Under the subject National Assembly it becomes an additional action that the Assembly is unable to legislate upon in that area. That is the way that it is phrased in this particular discussion, although we had a different discussion on this principle in Committee.

The principle that my noble friend seeks is statutory consultation—

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Agreement.

[Lord Elis-Thomas]

Yes, agreement with the Assembly on the outcome—a need to negotiate an agreement. So there are two principles there. Indeed, the noble Baroness is right that this has been overtaken by the undertaking given earlier, but I did not even dream that we would have so many undertakings, so I tabled the amendment in expectation rather than in hope—and now my hope is about to be fulfilled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

Then I very much hope that the noble Lord expresses his joy by not moving his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I was hoping for a more positive response. As I may have said earlier, once upon a time I was a civil servant. In Whitehall there is a little book called something like 1,001 Ways of Avoiding a Decision. “Yes Minister” is in that same vein. The argument put forward is that this is not the vehicle; this is not the time. I would argue that it is the vehicle and it is the time. The Minister’s speech could have been made a month or two months ago. My noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas indicated that there have been two recent developments in the Assembly—the resolution and the response to committee recommendations—which suggest that there is all-party agreement in the Assembly.

[Baroness Randerson]

Does the noble Lord accept that discussions are going on at this time on whether these issues should be devolved to the Assembly? His amendment would simply have the effect of delaying things which have been agreed some considerable time ago as a result of the normal form of public consultation.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

The last thing I would argue for is delay. There is surely a case for delay if there are genuine differences between the various parties in discussion, but I understand that there is no lack of consensus, as indicated in the points made by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas. If the argument is that I may be seeking to delay, I can say that I am certainly not doing that. If the argument is that my amendment may have the effect of delaying, I would respond: what is the effect of what the noble Baroness is saying?

Will there be some agreement in time for Third Reading on this matter, on which there is substantial agreement and on which we have the precedent of the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster? Why the difference? If there is agreement why cannot it be done now, as indeed on the concession that the Government made in respect of the voting age? Is the Minister prepared to say, given the consensus, that this can be remedied and changed at Third Reading? If not, I think it is unfortunate but I would certainly not wish to proceed with the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

7: Clause 2, leave out Clause 2

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Amendment 7 stands in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Morgan. My initial submission is that the area covered by the amendment should be a matter for the National Assembly and that it should not be for us to intervene. I note the two-thirds, super-majority suggestion. Given that the current membership of the Assembly is 40 directly-elected Members and 20 elected on the list system, that proposal would mean that the list system—even if it were deemed to be inappropriate—could not be judge because, on the “turkeys not voting for Christmas principle, those on the list system would be unlikely to vote for it to end.

The Government saw in the Bill, quite properly, a way in which to implement Silk 1. Clause 2 stands as an eccentric—something outside Silk 1. These are the only matters that deviate from the Silk recommendations, and one is constrained to ask why this is used as a vehicle for this important change. I shall not cover the same ground that we covered at Second Reading, although we did not consider this matter in Committee. However, I wish to counter the charge of naked partisanship that was used. Your Lordships may recall that I mentioned the significant comments of leading Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen. It is significant that their comments were made freshly after the actual experience of dual candidacy. Perhaps memories are now fading; for example, regarding the experience of the Clwyd West constituency election in 2003. It was won by Labour’s Alun Pugh. However, three of the other candidates—Brynle Williams, Conservative; Janet Ryder, Plaid Cymru; and Eleanor Burnham, Lib Dem—all became Assembly Members as a result of the regional list. It was a certain Alice in Wonderland world in which everyone was a winner; everyone had a prize.

To the suggestion that this is new and that the only country in the world to have had a similar ban on dual candidacy is Ukraine, Professor Roger Scully said in his evidence that a number of Asian countries have a similar ban. I cite Taiwan and South Korea. New Zealand, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in Canada have in recent years considered bans on dual candidacy. It is not, as has been suggested, confined to Ukraine. It is best surely that the normal rules should apply. If someone is rejected by the electorate in an election, that same person should remain rejected by the electorate and not come in by the side door and be on a par with other candidates.

The implication in suggesting that there should be dual candidacy is that we have a dearth of suitable candidates in Wales. That is not my experience. I recently watched a selection in my former constituency as an interested observer. I have seen many other candidate selections and there is a very good list of quality candidates who are ready and available for selection. We demean Welsh politics by suggesting that we do not have sufficiently able, competent people available.

I note the submission of the Electoral Reform Society Cymru, which is, if I have interpreted it correctly, that it wishes to rescind the ban on dual candidacy but impose a supermajority. Obviously we must respect its view, but equally recognise that this is not an ex cathedra statement. Yes, we respect it, but we in this case are the cathedra: it is we who dispose. The arguments against dual candidacy arising from the experience prior to 2003—I cited in the past not just Clwyd West, but the position of Llanelli—are sufficiently cogent for us to say that this matter should remain as it is. We should continue the ban on dual candidacy. It is, after all, in the interests of democracy that if someone is rejected by the electorate they should remain rejected by the electorate.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I want to say a word or two in support of my noble friend Lord Anderson. The principle that party-political candidates stand as individuals should not be ignored. People are not simply representatives of their parties: they are individuals and characters. Electors form judgments about their individual suitability to represent them in the Assembly. That is why I think that the permission to offer dual candidacy is wrong in principle.

Happily, the National Assembly for Wales has not been subject to the same pressure of scandal and disgrace as the House of Commons in respect of expenses, but there can be no doubt at all that when electors voted in the 2010 general election they formed their judgment, in the case of certain candidates, on the basis of those candidates’ personal records. That is the background to the introduction of the recall legislation. It is against that spirit to say that a candidate is no more than the representative of a party and that if that candidate does not win the first past the post part of the election that same individual candidate can acceptably come back on the list.

Even if it was not for that consideration, voters feel that it offends against an instinctive sense of political propriety that people should run as candidates under first past the post, lose the election and then turn up an hour or two later elected on the list system. That was offensive, and it was absolutely right that the previous Labour Government remedied the error that they had made in the original devolution legislation. The Government of Wales Act 2006 removed the possibility of people standing as candidates twice in the same election. It is regrettable that the coalition—here it is a coalition not just of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but also of Plaid Cymru—is seeking to restore a system that is designed by them to be advantageous to minority parties. It is entirely acceptable that under the electoral system we have for elections to the National Assembly for Wales extra provision is made to ensure that minority parties are represented there. However, we must avoid what was generally taken in Wales to be an abuse, whereby defeated candidates come back and reappear, contrary to the clearly expressed wishes of electors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

There may or may not be validity in what the noble Lord is saying. Some people may vote positively for a candidate while others, knowing certain candidates, will vote against. It is not a question of either/or.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

This comes back to the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord German where the candidates’ names are on the list. I should like to see the evidence that people are voting against candidates; none has been brought forward that I have seen.

When the last Labour Government introduced the ban on dual candidacy in the Government of Wales Act 2006, Ministers claimed to have done so as a result of the general public’s “considerable dissatisfaction” with dual candidacy. I have heard it suggested again today that an overwhelming majority of people are against it. Let us look at the two surveys referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. I turn first to the Government’s Green Paper. It was suggested by the shadow Secretary of State in another place that an overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation were opposed, but in fact the summary of responses published by the Wales Office in 2012 notes only a small majority—in fact, it was a majority of one.

Let us look at those who actually submitted to the consultation. The majority in favour of removing the ban were Labour AMs with responses written in remarkably similar language. I would ask noble Lords to look a little more closely at the evidence before they assert, as was done in another place, that an overwhelming majority of respondents thought that it was right to have the ban. Frankly, that is not the case. It is true that the 2006 paper produced by the Bevan Foundation found that a small majority did consider it to be unfair, but the foundation went on to say that any change should be “based on sound evidence”.

Perhaps I may take noble Lords with me to look at some of the evidence. Independent bodies such as the Electoral Commission have disputed the change. They have suggested in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee that the view is clear that prohibiting dual candidacy in Wales is not something that they are in favour of and is not supported by evidence as necessary. It seems to me that no evidence has been brought forward since then that suggests that such a change is necessary.

An acknowledged expert on this issue is Professor Roger Scully—who has already been mentioned—from Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre. I do not know his politics, but I know that he does not vote for the Conservative Party. He said:

“No substantial independent evidence was produced at the time of the GOWA”—

the Government of Wales Act 2006—

“(or, to my knowledge, has been produced subsequently) of significant public concern about dual candidacy. The claims made about dual candidacy ‘devaluing the integrity of the electoral system’, and ‘acting as a disincentive to vote’ therefore remain wholly unsupported by solid evidence”.

It is a fact, and one recognised by the Arbuthnott commission established by the last Labour Government, that dual candidacy is a feature of mixed-member proportional electoral systems the world over; yet of all the countries that use this system, it is only Wales that has such a ban.

That brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Taiwan, which I believe he mentioned, Thailand and Ukraine all have a different system where they have two completely separate lists that do not interact; so it does not apply in the same way. In New Zealand, whose system he also recommended, the Electoral Commission has urged against introducing such a ban, so there is very little evidence elsewhere out there that this ban is desirable.

I come to a point that has not been touched on—rather significantly—that, apparently, at the same time as we were saying that this ban was so necessary for Wales when it was introduced for Wales at Westminster, for some strange reason it was not introduced in relation to the Greater London Assembly or to Scotland. At the time, of course, both bodies had regional members who represented the Labour Party, whereas in Wales there were no regional members for the Labour Party. Cynics might suggest that there is something to read into that, but we have not heard any mention of why the ban is only something that is right for Wales, but not right for Scotland or Greater London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to the Front Bench for the first time on a Bill. Let us warmly welcome him. He has made a major contribution, not least to constitutional matters in Wales.

On what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said on STV, this is certainly worth debating. It would get around the dangers of dual candidacy. Of course, the problem is that people can identify with a constituency but are less able to identify with a region, but it certainly would be more democratic and would remove the dangers of this particular proposal from the Government.

On the evidence, I concede that it is not overwhelming, but the surveys that have been mentioned all point one way. There is no popular demand for this and there is a slight majority in the relevant two surveys showing that there is opposition to the dual candidacy—for good reason.

What puzzles me is that the Bill is broadly non-controversial and has been made even more palatable by the concessions made today by the Government. Yet, the Bill essentially puts into practice the recommendations of the Silk commission except for this provision. If you were a geologist you would call that eccentric and something outside that. One wonders why the Government have added this to what is essentially a non-controversial Bill.

This is not a partisan amendment in any way on my part. I have mentioned before that the leading spokespeople of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties earlier opposed dual candidacy—for good reason. They had seen it in practice during the first Assembly. I gave quotations at Second Reading to show that, since this had been introduced by a Labour Government, the amendment could hardly be deemed partisan. As the rejection was supported by these two leading spokespeople, it again could hardly be deemed partisan. In my judgment, this is an unwise inclusion in what would otherwise be a non-controversial Bill. The Labour Party has pledged to reverse this when we get into government. Having made my point and looking forward to that reversal—

[Lord Elis-Thomas]

My main concern about this whole issue is the constitutional situation where the electoral system for the Assembly is to be changed whenever there is a change of United Kingdom Government. Quite frankly, I find that reprehensible. We require stability in an electoral system. Would my noble friend agree that it is better that this matter is devolved to the Assembly, so that we can create an electoral system that would be responsive to the people of Wales and would be established by only a two-thirds majority?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I have argued in the past that all the electoral arrangements, including this one, should be devolved to the Assembly, but I am less inclined to accept the latter part of my noble friend’s submission that there should be a two-thirds majority. It would not be a two-thirds majority but a one-third blocking minority, so it would be minority rule. Given the fact that under the current system a third of the seats are on the list, I suspect that nobody on the list will vote for any change. On the whole, we should let the Assembly makes its own decision on this. I therefore wholly accept the view of my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 3 is straightforward. It disqualifies Members of the House of Commons from sitting as Members of the National Assembly for Wales. The provision implements recommendation 40 of the 2009 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, MPs’ Expenses and Allowances. The committee’s recommendation derived from consideration of the position in Northern Ireland, where all the parties with representatives at Westminster wanted to bring multiple mandates to an end.

The clause also appears to be supported by the main parties at Westminster. At Second Reading in the other place Owen Smith, speaking for the Opposition, said that the Labour Party welcomed the provision, as the party had,

“always had an internal party position whereby it does not support people having dual mandates”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/14; col. 618.]

What, then, is the basis for outlawing dual mandates? The argument appears to be that one cannot do the job of an MP while also holding another mandate. It was that conceit of the European Parliament that led to the EU prohibiting members of national legislatures from serving as Members of the European Parliament. We had to legislate to exclude Members of this House who were elected as MEPs.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life also contended that a dual mandate did not meet the conditions it prescribed for MPs holding other jobs—namely that it did not interfere with the primary role of the MP, was completely transparent to electors, and did not present a conflict of interest. The committee conceded that the second of these did not apply to a dual mandate. There is obvious transparency.

I am not persuaded that the other two conflict with holding the dual mandate either. I do not see a conflict of interest—not, at least, if one is representing the same constituents. The point about interfering with the primary role of the MP brings us, in essence, back to the practical argument. I am not clear that a case has been made that it interferes with the primary role of the MP. One could argue that it introduces an element of cross-fertilisation of benefit to both bodies.

Last week I had the honour of attending, indeed of chairing, the Speaker’s Lecture, given by Nick Raynsford, a former Minister for Local Government, who drew attention to the decline, which he regretted, in the number of MPs who serve concurrently as local councillors. The numbers have decreased significantly in recent decades, to the point where there are now virtually no MPs who also sit as local councillors. As he pointed out, this is in stark contrast to what happens in a number of our European neighbours.

Supporters of the clause will doubtless argue that it is no longer possible to do justice to the job of an MP while also serving as a local councillor. Some seem to manage—but that is not my point. The argument ignores a fundamental issue of principle. If one is to have a public office filled by election, one should not infringe the freedom of choice of the electors. If electors wish for a particular candidate to serve them in more than one assembly, that is a matter for them. It may be difficult or near impossible to serve in both, but that is not a sufficient basis for prohibiting voters by law from electing whoever they wish to represent them.

The late Lord Bannside was well known for having a triple mandate, never mind a dual mandate. Fulfilling all three roles may have been overly demanding. He may not have served his constituents effectively—although I am not saying he did not. My point is that it was a matter for him, and for those who elected him. His constituents put him in those positions. They knew what to do if they felt he was not representing them effectively.

I have a principled objection to restricting by law the choice of electors. I do not regard it as our role to say who electors should or should not elect. It is for that reason that I supported lowering the age at which one could stand for election to public office. I have no problem with that age being lower than the voting age; it used to be the other way round. If you lower the voting age to 16, you empower 16 year-olds. If you lower the age at which someone can stand for election to 16, you empower electors. My view is that we should be widening the choice of electors, not restricting it.

There are some positions that are incompatible with elected office. Those are generally already provided for, but we should keep them to a minimum. I see that in Amendment 10 my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford wishes to exclude any,

“member of the legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth (other than Ireland),

from being eligible to be elected to the National Assembly. I suspect the chances of any member of such a legislature standing are pretty slim, but why should we legislate to prevent that? If political parties wish to have internal rules to limit such dual candidatures, that is a matter for them, but we should not be using the statute book to forbid it. If an AM wants to stand for election to the House of Commons or an MP seeks election to the National Assembly, that should be a matter for them and for the judgment of electors.

As I said, my objection to the clause is one of principle. We should apply stringent standards of scrutiny to measures of constitutional significance, not least those that place a restriction on electors. That is what, in effect, the clause does. It is important to get this on the record. We are in danger of creating a patchwork quilt of restrictions through bans on a dual mandate. We need to be more alert to the implications. If we are to proceed with the clause, we need to have on record a clear, principled justification for it. I invite both Front Benches to address the issue of principle engaged by the provision. There is no need to address the practical implications; we know what those are. We need to have the principle underpinning the ban that trumps the right of electors to elect the candidates of their choice. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, says. He argues on a point of principle that the choice of the electorate should not be channelled in any way in respect of dual candidacy. He mentioned the position on the continent. He will know that the stream is moving strongly against an accumulation of mandates on the continent—certainly in France, which I know reasonably well. When I represented Swansea, I would have loved to be the Mayor of Swansea at the same time and, perhaps, to have had another mandate. That would have been very useful in cross-fertilisation and no doubt added to my local standing. I work on the simple principle of practicality. People tend to vote for the party, which stands against the principled point which the noble Lord enunciated. Also, no person can serve two masters. My experience in the other place was that, if done properly, it was a full-time job. Equally, as we add to the responsibilities of the Assembly, if an Assembly Member is to do the job properly, that is also a full-time job, and the electorate should not be short-changed by allowing a person to do the two jobs. They will do one well and the other not.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for inviting us to reflect on the principle involved here. When he comes to respond to the debate, perhaps he would give us the benefit of his thoughts on how his principle would apply if, as has been proposed, there should be a senate of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Admittedly, I understand that the proposition is that members of the senate should be indirectly elected: they should be sent from the Assemblies and Parliaments of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. However, I should be grateful for the noble Lord’s guidance as to what principle ought to apply there: whether he considers that a dual mandate in those circumstances should be permitted by law, discouraged or something that the rules of the political parties should embrace—or would he advise a degree of caution in the matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, it is precisely because there was cross-party agreement that there is a valuable case for raising the issue. I am grateful to those who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, invites me to digress somewhat on to the proposal for a senate of the regions and nations—the words “back of an envelope” come to mind. In terms of the principle that would apply, it would be that which I have enunciated. He talked about caution, but I think that caution should apply to the very proposal for such a senate, rather than the method by which its members should be chosen.

On the points that have been raised, the principal argument deployed from both Front Benches against the amendment is, in essence, that being an MP is a full-time job. There are two problems with that. It was not accepted by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its report, where the challenge was a conflict with the primary role, not an argument about its being a full-time job. It is also belied by the fact that the House of Commons is not unable to function because MPs are doing other jobs. It is quite possible for an MP to fulfil the functions of a Member of Parliament while being a Minister of the Crown, for example. I really do not see the argument that—

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

While there is a difference between being a Minister and a Member of Parliament, they are in the same building at the same time. I invite the noble Lord to consider the example of someone who is a Member of the Assembly and yet is called to vote in the House of Commons—as the Prime Minister was yesterday, in full evening dress—and therefore neglects what might also be an important vote in the Assembly. A number of conflicts will arise in that way and a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Assembly will have to choose which he would prefer.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I recall that, particularly pre-devolution, we had Ministers who were responsible for different parts of the United Kingdom and who had to spend an awful lot of time not being in London. If there are challenges from being in both assemblies, that is a matter for the Members. Certainly, at times Members have managed to achieve that. Let us not forget that when we talk about a dual mandate, we are referring only to the House of Commons. There are Members of this Chamber who have a dual mandate, including one who is present at the moment.

Wales Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord possibly does not recognise the importance of St David’s Day in Wales. However, the day is chosen not simply because it has significance within Wales but because it falls conveniently before the next election and before the start of the campaign proper of the next election.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

The Minister has made a very important concession. Clearly, the Government have listened very carefully to what was said in Committee, but the problem remains of what vehicle will be used to bring this new consensus into operation. The noble Baroness will know how difficult it is to find a slot in the legislative programme. It is also very difficult, obviously, for the Government to give any firm undertakings. How does she respond to that?

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord makes an important point. By moving forward on a cross-party basis, it is the intention to ensure that there is commitment across the four parties in Wales to ensure that the Bill can come forward in the early stages of the next Parliament.

Wales Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 59 has the same target as that of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, but approaches it in a different way. I ask that the tax reforms shall not come into force until a Welsh Government Minister has laid a report before the National Assembly containing a statement that the Welsh Government, with regard to the statement of funding policy, are content with the fairness of the allocation of funding arrangements from the UK Government to Wales. So this is effectively about fair funding, also known as the Barnett formula. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in saying that in the current, somewhat depressed, economy, the gap has been narrowed. If there is positive economic development, that gap will be widened again.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked us to be positive and not to be “moaning minnies”. I therefore turn to the front page of yesterday’s Western Mail, which quotes Shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith as saying after the discussions yesterday afternoon:

“I impressed on the Secretary of State the need for his Government to deliver fair funding for Wales”—

and here it is—

“and am pleased that he seemed prepared to address this issue”.

Well, if he is prepared to address it satisfactorily, I could sit down, I suppose. However, it is clearly a major issue in Wales.

Many years ago I sat at the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who went on to become the vice-chancellor of Aberystwyth. He had come “al hoot” from Oxford and taught us poor undergraduates in Swansea new words such as “marginal”. He taught me about the great American labour leader Samuel Gompers, who was once asked, “What does American labour want?”. Some people expected him to suggest revolution or radical change. Samuel Gompers answered: “More”. If the grand public in north, south or mid-Wales were asked what they wanted, they would not enthuse about the proposed changes to landfill tax or income tax, or modified powers. They would say, “We want more”—because we are currently underfunded; the extent is uncertain, but we are certainly underfunded.

That was the position taken by the First Minister. I recall that immediately after the Scottish referendum he said something to the effect that Scotland has put the United Kingdom “through the grinder”—I think those were his words—and that the funding issue should now reappear: we should effectively shout more loudly. Scotland has been rewarded for it. Are we in Wales to continue to be taken for granted? We have played Mr Nice Guy and been ignored. Objectively, we have lost out financially.

Time is such that I will not detain the Committee, but I was impressed by an article by Alice Thomson in the Times of 24 September which—unusually, coming from a non-Welsh person—stated:

“While Scotland is being showered with largesse, Wales—failing and underfunded—has been pointedly ignored”.

She went on to give examples from Holtham:

“Last year under the Barnett formula, Scotland received £10,152 per head, while Wales, despite being much poorer, got £9,709. If Wales received the same levels of public spending per capita as Scotland, its public services would be boosted by £1.4 billion”.

Well, there may be argument about the exact amounts, but I cite what she says: Wales has been the orphan within the United Kingdom. She says:

“Wales is now barely acknowledged by politicians in Westminster … When I asked one English minister what the future held for Wales, he said: ‘Sheep and singing’”.

I hope that is not the attitude of other Ministers in this Government. I would ask noble Lords to read that article, which is very important.

It may well be that the shortfall could be remedied in other ways. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who mentioned a review of Severn Bridge funding. What is clear is that the Severn Bridge, with its substantial and increasing toll, is a major tax on Wales. There would be a big boost to the economy of Wales if that toll were to be removed. I would commend that to the Government. There may be other ways of making up that shortfall, but fair funding there should be.

I will end again on a positive note. I am encouraged by the way in which Owen Smith emerged from that conclave and said that he thought the Secretary of State was listening. Not just listening I hope, but ready to act.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

57: Clause 29, page 31, line 18, leave out from end to “is” in line 25 and insert—
“(1A) Subject to the other provision made by this section, Parts 1, 2 and 3 come into force on such day as the National Assembly for Wales shall determine.
(1B) Parts 1, 2 and 3 may not come into force until the recommendations of a constitutional convention examining the distribution of power between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom have been considered and voted upon by each House of Parliament.
( ) Subsection (1A)”

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the last two amendments—and I hope I will not detain your Lordships too long—are in my name. They refer to the constitutional convention and the relevance of the Williams report: a report which is not mainly about the structure of local government but which contains important clauses on that. My contention would be that, just as we have looked at the relationship between the component parts of the United Kingdom, we should look also at the relationship between the Welsh Government and local government in Wales.

On the constitutional convention, there seems to be an increasing consensus that we need to look at the British constitution in the round. I fear that the response of the Minister would be: if you are so keen on your constitutional convention, why not put it in the manifesto for the next election when it can be debated? But that was Monday’s argument—since when, as we say, an amendment has been moved.

As an assiduous reader of the Western Mail I notice that, on the front page of yesterday’s paper, the Secretary of State, no less, is quoted as saying:

“Up to now, we’ve been saying, ‘Well, these are just matters for the individual parties and their manifestos at the next election’, but actually I think we can do better than that”.

Clearly, the noble Baroness appeared not to be on message on Monday; perhaps she will be a bit more on message today when she comes to respond.

So there is an increasing consensus. I hear the argument from time to time that to suggest a constitutional convention is no more than a device for delay and for kicking the matter into the long grass. The answer is that promises were made to Scotland—and some might argue that never has so much response been made by parties in the United Kingdom to one maverick opinion poll. When the Sunday Times YouGov poll suggested that there was a majority for independence, there was a certain panic among all parties, resulting in a response that may now be regretted at leisure.

The promises made to Scotland are clear and should be honoured, but they can be implemented on their own grounds. However, there are implications for the rest of the United Kingdom and, in my judgment, for the constitution—and I think that the Liberal Democrats have broadly been the leaders in this field. Clearly, the quasi-federal constitution needs to be viewed with all the difficulties that may arise. We need to have concern across the board, including in relation to your Lordships’ House. If there is to be a new regionalism, it should be reflected in the way that this House is elected, directly or indirectly—possibly, as in France, using the notables from local authorities. I think that the electorate of the French Senate is roughly 80,000. These are the people who are in the localities, the regional assemblies and the local authorities, and they come together having been elected indirectly to work together in the Senate. Your Lordships’ House should not be excluded from this consideration.

I think it was Alastair Campbell who said, “We don’t do religion”. That may or may not be the case but in the United Kingdom we don’t do constitutions—except for other people. We are pretty keen on delivering constitutions to colonial powers from high to low but we are not so good at doing it for ourselves. I have spoken to many groups from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and have been tempted to use the phrase “the Mother of Parliaments”, but clearly things are creaking in our own constitutional structures at the moment. Perhaps the 45% vote for independence in Scotland is a means of alerting us to the fact that the status quo cannot continue.

I recall Lord Weatherill, who was both a distinguished Speaker of the other place and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers in this House, telling me a little story. He worked in the family firm of tailors and on his first day there was an old Jewish tailor to monitor him. One of the senior people came to the old Jewish tailor and said they wanted a suit made. He said, “Do you want it quick or do you want it good?”. There is an element of that in terms of constitutions. After all, we have agonised over changes for so long, going from precedent to precedent with a little tweak here and a little tweak there.

Now there must surely be a case for a group to make an initial analysis by looking at foreign examples and then for the elected representatives, so far as they are able, to take a considered view. It may be a federal system. Even within a federal system or a quasi-federal system one can have a range of very different powers. We know that in the different autonomía of Spain, for example, it is federalism à la carte. An autonomía such as Valencia has relatively limited powers, whereas Galicia and Catalonia have far more extensive powers—all within the same system. There is no reason why, according to demand, there should not be asymmetric devolution.

The key question is: are we happy to continue with constitutional tinkering or do we feel that we have reached the point where we need to look at the whole constitution from this place and the other place. I recall that one of the major cogent arguments used when we were discussing the future of this House was that there was no attempt to place it in the context of the relationship between this House and the House of Commons. We need to look at the devolved assemblies, and we also need to look at local authorities.

If we are not happy to continue tinkering, it is clearly right that we should now recognise that after the Scottish referendum we are in a new context, and that the status quo has proved insufficient. I recall that when the three party leaders made a vow, they came together quite properly. If they accept the case for a constitutional convention that is good although perhaps not quick, what is now stopping them? Is there not a reason for them to now make a similar vow on a consensual basis that this country deserves a constitutional convention?

I turn now to my second point, on which I shall be quite brief, which is the question of the Williams report. I submit that it would be wrong to ignore the position within Wales: that is, the relationship between the Assembly and the local authority. I recall that during the initial debates on devolution in the 1970s the Welsh Office, as it was then called, totally ignored local government. It was only at a fairly late stage of the debate that it was recognised and brought within the discussion that there were substantial implications for local government.

There is clearly a temptation for Cardiff Bay to hold on to what it has. However, I am encouraged by the response of the leader and, indeed, all the parties in the Assembly. Although the Williams commission hoped that there would be action by Easter of this year, we know that on 1 July the overview on broad public service recommendations was addressed, and on 8 July the local government reorganisation was addressed with a general White Paper. Now we are promised that on 28 November there will be a voluntary merger of local authorities. On 28 February there will be a White Paper setting out the process for merging councils that do not want to merge. There is already a timetable in process.

I will not labour the point that there is no ideal local government structure in Wales. I recall that many years ago when I was the Member for Monmouth there were certainly at least a dozen local authorities: rural district councils, urban district councils and town councils. That was done away with in the Walker reforms, with counties and districts. Clearly, it was right that the counties had responsibility for education and social services, but the divisions were not easily made.

We have now had further elements of reform. City regions are being considered. However, perhaps the failures over food safety are very good examples of the fact that, for certain areas of expertise, local authorities need to be able to employ experts in the field. I end on the plea that we do not forget local government. There appears to be a consensus within the Assembly on implementing the recommendations of the Williams commission, and the timetable is such that these could well be implemented before the provisions of the Wales Bill become law. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, it is such a delight to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who had a somewhat feckless youth when he was passionately anti-devolution. Clearly, somewhere between Monmouth and Swansea he was struck with the true light of liberal principle. As I understand his speech, he now supports not merely Liberal Democrat policy but also what was, in his feckless youth, Liberal policy.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My position then was as it is now. Devolution within a unitary system is flawed in many respects, including the fact that there is no end position, whereas a federal or quasi-federal system with a constitutional court to adjudicate on the differences between the component parts is logical. We were embarking in the 1970s on a strange new journey and perhaps it was Mrs Thatcher, with her own form of centralisation, who was the major recruiting sergeant for me on that.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has disappointed me slightly with this recantation of what he said earlier, but never mind. I am entirely with him that we need a constitutional convention and that we should be looking for the abolition of the House of Lords and some form of federal, directly elected or proportionately elected Chamber that could consider the situation as a whole, perhaps with a Supreme Court charged with the sort of duties that attach to the Supreme Court in the United States. That is not, however, any reason for holding up the provisions of this Bill, which are urgent. The Bill needs to go through because Wales cannot wait for a future nirvana when we have got it all together, it is all very logical and all the problems are at an end. We cannot keep the Bill waiting for that moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the Minister vastly overstates her case by claiming that this Bill would lead to a truly accountable Welsh Government. If we look at this objectively, it is pretty small beer. It is a Wales (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It was framed in a very different context from that which we have now, after the Scottish referendum. I assure her that the purpose of these two amendments—

[Baroness Randerson]

Is the noble Lord saying that a Bill that provides fiscal accountability for the very first time for the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government is not a big step forward? Is he saying that the provision of borrowing powers for the first time for them is not also a big step forward? Does he not accept that the devolution settlement has been sadly lacking up to now because there has not been that proper accountability and that this is a vital development?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I hear what the Minister says about accountability but given the relatively small changes and the small amount of money involved in these taxes which are to be transferred, I doubt that one can properly say that there is real accountability. There is considerable scepticism in the Assembly in relation to the tax powers, which may be stillborn in any event. Yes, I accept that borrowing powers are a major innovation in the Bill but these borrowing powers, albeit in diluted form, are available to local authorities in Wales in any event so why not to the National Assembly?

On the general point she made, my purpose in having this formula of,

“may not come into force until”,

was clearly only to provoke a debate. It was not intended as a freeze or delaying device. I accept that after the result of the Scottish referendum we cannot return to business as usual. Finally, I also accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Howarth that there are great problems in the concept of a constitutional convention. Even if we have the so-called constitutional experts, no doubt there will be minority opinions—as there have been on similar issues. It may be extremely difficult to find—as we saw in respect of reform of your Lordships’ House—any reasonable consensus following that.

Having provoked the debate that I set out to provoke by using the formula that, I say again, was not intended to freeze in any way the progress of the Wales (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

Wales Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I understand that this new chapter is not the easiest read. In fact, I found it quite good for getting to sleep on one occasion. However, it is important to recognise that this is a complex issue and has a direct relationship with things such as tax law, and when you get an indirect relationship with tax law. When you get into these things, the more you think about it, the more exceptions that occur to you to be considered.

The clauses in this Bill are very closely based on those in the Scotland Act and have been subject to the whole scrutiny process in that respect. I suggest that noble Lords think about how to deal with somebody who is a lorry driver or a shift worker. Every time you set a test, you can think of exceptions. Before the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, thinks that being a Scottish parliamentarian and a Welsh parliamentarian in the same year is unusual, may I remind him that I call this the “Keith Raffan clause”? Keith Raffan was an MP in north Wales and then almost immediately an MSP in Scotland. He moved from Wales to Scotland.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Did he hold both positions in the same tax year?

[Baroness Randerson]

We are talking about the situation in the past. Keith Raffan moved from Wales to Scotland; he also moved from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Democrats. The whole thing is a relevant example: the thing you would imagine would never happen has already happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

What is the answer to the good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that this is appropriate for an order, rather than for the face of the Bill?

[Baroness Randerson]

That is a perfectly valid point, but we have it here in the Bill. I am also very conscious of the fact that noble Lords constantly complain that there is not enough in the Bill and that there should be more on its face and less in orders for the sake of transparency. On this occasion, you have total transparency. There is also, of course, the argument that we are talking about tax rules for individuals. In fact, if you have more on the face of the Bill, that could be said to be easier for individual taxpayers to follow.

May I finally make it absolutely clear to noble Lords that the noble Lord’s amendment would, in fact, mean taking away the simple test—which is the test, if you have only one home, of where your closest connection is—and replacing it with everyone counting days? Counting days is one way of dealing with it but not the simplest one. For most people, the simple thing is to ask, “Where is your home?” and, “Where do you spend most of your time?”. Taking away that option and leaving everyone counting days would possibly make life much more complex.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked why not just say “resident in Wales”? I think noble Lords are well aware that the concept of where your residence is has caused a number of people a lot of trouble over the years. It is really important that we have clarity and absolute rules. There should be no doubt in people’s minds as to which rules they need apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rowlands]

My Lords, there is a consensus that both stamp duty and landfill tax should be devolved. I have no intention of questioning that consensus. The purpose of my seeking a debate on these clauses is to ensure that we know the implications of devolving these taxes, particularly on the block grant. To date, I do not think we have concentrated on that issue.

I have some questions, first, about stamp duty. Stamp duty revenues were £115 million in 2010-11, according to the Silk commission. This represents only 2% of the total. The Silk commission makes the obvious point that stamp duty is a very volatile tax. It can vary from year to year depending on the state of the housing market. No form of indexation such as has been developed to deal with income tax devolution was recommended; in fact the recommendation was for a fixed reduction. How is the fixed deduction from the block grant going to be determined? What will be the arrangements and process, and how will it be assessed? What impact will the devolution of stamp duty have on the block grant?

The second tax that we are devolving—the landfill tax—is very different. It is a tax that is not really aimed at raising revenue. It is intended to encourage waste saving and recycling. In fact, the success of this tax would be if the revenue declined. Indeed, the Silk commission points out that that is exactly what is happening: the taxable base—that is, the volume of waste sent to landfill—is declining. Across the UK, the taxable base for landfill has fallen by 33% in the last five years, and so the value of the block grant offset would need to reflect a declining tax base. Again, there is a serious issue about what impact the devolution of this tax would have on the block grant: how it will be assessed and how it will be decided what the deduction will be.

There are a couple of other complications with the landfill tax, as listed in paragraph 24 of the March 2014 White Paper. There is a UK Landfill Communities Fund attached to the landfill tax. This fund is financed by contributions from the landfill site operators, who receive an LfT credit worth 90% of any contribution they make. This is a UK fund and a UK landfill tax credit arrangement. However, once devolved, the operators in Wales will no longer be eligible for UK tax credits. As I understand it—and it is clearly stated in paragraph 24 of the White Paper—once we devolve the landfill tax, the eligibility for the UK-based landfill tax credits will disappear. I am not quite sure but I thought that the Minister implied in an earlier remark that in fact it would not, but according to paragraph 24, that is the case. It says:

“Once LfT is devolved to Wales, operators of landfill sites in Wales will no longer be eligible for a UK LfT credit”.

So that credit would fall. Are there powers in the Bill to allow a Welsh Government to create an equivalent landfill tax credit scheme of this kind?

In Wales, there are 24 registered landfill site operators, of which 15 were in receipt of tax credits during the financial year 2013-14. HMRC will not disclose information relating to how much the individual operators receive but the landfill communities contributed £4.19 million in 2010-11, £4.3 million in 2011-12 and £4.3 million in 2012-13 towards environmental projects in Wales.

Paragraph 24 on page 11 of the White Paper explains that there is going to be a transitional period. Will the Welsh Government, if they wish to, be able to establish an equivalent landfill tax scheme, of the kind that has been operating and which has successfully ensured that in some areas—where these landfill sites are often very controversial and have impacts upon local communities—they are able to make contributions and maintain some kind of local community fund?

The second problem identified in paragraph 24 is that:

“LfT is a key lever for the UK Government to achieve its 2020 landfill reduction target under the Landfill Directive (relating to the biodegradable municipal waste). Member states may be fined if they fail to achieve their target. In the unlikely event that the UK fails to meet its landfill reduction target solely because of changes to landfill tax policy in Wales, the Government will seek to recover this cost from the Welsh Government”.

There is an uncertainty hanging over this issue and the impact that it will have.

We are advised in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Government’s White Paper on the question of how we are going to determine the reduction in the block grant. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate and explain paragraph 31 in more detail, as I have not fully understood it. It indicates some kind of proposition for the way they will handle the assessment of the reduction in the block grant once these taxes are devolved.

Paragraph 32 says:

“The Government continues to discuss this proposal, and other options, with the Scottish Government and has now opened similar discussions with the Welsh Government”.

Could the Minister update us on these discussions? How close are they to coming to some real understanding and agreement on the basis for reductions in the block grant as a result of devolving these taxes? I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that when we come to Report, these two important implications of how the block grant will be reduced will be much clearer and we will be able to approve these clauses in the full knowledge of the impact they will have on the block grant. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My noble friend as usual asks some very probing and cogent questions. On the face of it, these transfers of tax responsibility are relatively symbolic because, on the “bucket and the well” principle, what is gained on the one hand is lost on the other in terms of the block grant. It would be helpful if that could be elaborated on. Perhaps the best answer is that these transfers give a basis for the borrowing powers, which are very welcome, and which are contained in the Bill. Just a word of caution, however: the idea of a transfer of stamp duty has already been seized upon by other groups, notably by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. London, of course, has far greater resources and far more wealthy houses and land than Wales. If this were to move along the spectrum in the UK, it could have substantial implications, not least for Wales. Therefore, I utter a word of caution. However, on the other side of the coin, the borrowing powers, and the use to which they will be put—pace the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who feels that north Wales is likely to lose out in terms of the borrowing powers—are indeed welcome in principle.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, Labour supports the move to devolve stamp duty land tax to Wales as it would be an obvious candidate due to the highly immobile nature of the tax base. The other issue to consider is the fact that housing is already a devolved issue. Devolving this tax would allow the Welsh Government to have a more comprehensive approach to housing needs in Wales. I echo the concerns of my noble friend Lord Rowlands about the impact on the block grant. Obviously, there would be an impact. The Command Paper states that the Government continue to discuss this proposal. However, the problem is that we are back to a negotiated agreement based on subjective decisions, so it is not as clear as we would like it to be.

As my noble friend Lord Anderson said, we have to be very careful about this issue. If Scotland and Wales opt for this measure, what will happen when London, with its £1.3 billion of stamp duty, starts to ask for it? If we go down this route, we must be very careful and do so with our eyes open. I am not saying that we should not go down this route but we should be aware of the floodgates that we might open in doing so. However, we support this tax.

The most obvious problem with the landfill tax is that the more successful the policy of using the tax as a means of getting people not to use landfill is, the less income will be derived for the Welsh Government. The other problem is that the current system of landfill does not identify the geographical location of the taxable activity, so we would have to bring in a whole new administrative mechanism as it does not exist in the UK at the moment. A danger could arise of the cross-border disposal of waste if there were a change in the rate of tax between one country and another. We need to be aware that these things could cause problems. However, as I said, the benefit is that this is a relatively immobile tax and waste management is a devolved responsibility so there would be opportunities to co-ordinate policy, particularly in respect of the environmental aims of the Welsh Government. We are in favour of devolving these taxes given their importance in providing an independent source of income to borrow against but we should be aware of the floodgates that might open in the rest of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 51A, which relates to air passenger duty devolution. I draw the attention of the Committee to the register of interests, in particular the reference to my chairmanship of Cardiff Wales Airport.

The UK Government’s stance on APD remains bafflingly inconsistent with the devo-zeitgeist, if I may call it that, that has so enraptured everyone over recent months. The decision to cherry pick parts of the Silk recommendations is a sad example of the short-sightedness that seems continually to put Wales behind. The Bill provides an opportunity to redress this state of affairs. I shall quote the relevant passage from Silk 1, so that I can put it on record. It states:

“We have also recommended the devolution of long haul rates of Air Passenger Duty, and consideration of full devolution in the future. We do this in the context of the wider consideration of regional airport developments across the United Kingdom associated with the independent commission on airport capacity, chaired by Sir Howard Davies”.

The UK Government position currently is that:

“APD devolution will distort competition”,

when applied to Cardiff and Bristol. This is unsound and I put it to your Lordships that that position is not supported by the European Commission guidance that defines the laws on support of regional airports. The European Commission in its latest guidelines on state aid to airports and airlines made it clear that airports with more than 5 million passengers per annum can and should run on their own steam, without any government support. Bristol has more than 6 million passengers. The Commission recognises that there is a case for government state aid being offered to smaller regional airports, and defines them as those that have between 1 million and 3 million passengers per annum. Cardiff currently handles just over 1 million. The Commission also states that if airports are more than 100 kilometres apart, then they have, by definition, different core catchments, and aid to one will not affect aid to the other. I can assure noble Lords that Cardiff Airport is more than 100 kilometres from Bristol Airport—I have actually used my tape measure—and each certainly has different core catchments. It is my contention that aid to one will not affect the other. It is therefore my contention that the UK Government’s current position is flawed because they could not make a legitimate case, underpinned by EC guidance, that aid to Cardiff distorted competition with Bristol.

The Welsh Government have a long-standing policy of lobbying for full devolution of air passenger duty, with a view to abolishing it. I was informed this afternoon that all four party leaders have agreed to propose again the abolition of long-haul air passenger duty. The Commission on Devolution in Wales, Silk 1, recommended that long-haul air passenger duty should be fully devolved. So where are we? This is a very important factor regarding competition. Belfast was given such devolution on the basis that it is near to Dublin. I do not think that it is 100 kilometres distant but Belfast was given it anyway by the UK Government. I bet my bottom dollar, if I may use such vulgarity in your Lordships’ House, that Edinburgh will be after this in a flash when it gets whatever it is going to get in the future.

I put it to noble Lords and the Government Front Bench that this situation is very serious for us in Wales. The Howard commission recognised the importance of regional airports. This is the one regional airport of our capital city in Wales, and has to be provided for and helped. That is the point of my amendment and I ask the Government to consider it.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I have two brief comments—one on the varying of fuel duty and the other on air passenger duty.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, says and the assumption is that we as a people are relatively poor in Wales in terms of prosperity when compared with much of the rest of the UK. That is certainly true and, therefore, the assumption is that he would wish to reduce fuel duty rather than increase it. If that duty were to decrease, I can imagine the Luxembourg precedent happening. Those of your Lordships who know that country will know that fuel duty is lower there than in the adjoining countries, so there are large queues at all the filling stations in Luxembourg of people who come across the border. One can imagine similar occurrences over the border in Cheshire, Herefordshire and elsewhere, the sorts of problems that would arise as a result, and the complaints that would be made if there were to be a reduction in fuel duty.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, said about air passenger duty and different core catchment areas. I come from Swansea and I should have thought that Bristol and Cardiff are, frankly, within the core catchment areas. I can see nodding from the direction of Newport. This is not like the precedent in Northern Ireland, where there is no immediate competitor. Bristol and Cardiff are very close and, in my judgment, the passenger catchment areas are similar. There is therefore a substantial difference in this situation and there could be real problems in seeking to provide greater competitiveness for Cardiff, which could only be at the expense of Bristol.

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe]

It is not my idea of a catchment area but the European Commission’s, and the figure of 100 kilometres between two regional airports is in the Commission’s guidance. I again submit that Cardiff and certainly Swansea are not within the Bristol catchment area, as defined by the European Commission.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

That may be the definition of the European Commission but I speak on a matter of reality and look at it from the perspective of those who travel from those airports.

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe]

With respect, the journey from Swansea to Bristol is considerably longer than the journey from Swansea to Cardiff.

Wales Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 6 only, which I believe to be a model of draftsmanship, put together in such a way as to bring about as wide and substantial a coalition in favour of a principle as one can imagine.

I believe with retrospect that there are two essential questions facing the House. First, do noble Lords in their heart of hearts believe for a moment that the Welsh Assembly can conduct its important duties, including scrutiny of legislation in particular, on a basis of 60 Members? Secondly, if noble Lords do not—and I suspect that practically every Member of the House can see the force of that point—what are we prepared to do about it? Those are two very simple but, I believe, crushingly relevant questions.

The facts have already been set out very clearly. Scotland has 129 Members; Northern Ireland has 108; Wales has 60. Of course, even more important than that is the fact that only 42 Members in Wales are available to scrutinise legislation. In the case of Scotland there are 113; in the case of Northern Ireland, I am not entirely sure whether it is 90 or 92—I think it may be 92. In the case of the House of Commons, it is 522. However, the issue is not really how many Members you have in relation to the population. There may well be a proper argument in that respect that is deployed later; that is not the issue at the moment. The issue is the minimum critical mass. If you fall below that and fail to constitute a critical mass, you are not a legislature; you are a mock parliament and no legislature at all.

That has to be remembered against this background. It is a single cameral House. I am not for a moment arguing that we should have a second House, which might be very interesting to dissertate on some day. Be that as it may, we have plenty to worry about at the moment in this regard. It is a single cameral House. The scrutiny of legislation in Wales occurs in the Assembly or does not occur at all. That is the point.

This House does its work magnificently as a scrutinising body. Sometimes, we are given more to scrutinise than we should be. I feel that the House of Commons sends huge pieces of undigested legislation through which almost makes a mockery of the constitutional situation, but that is another story altogether.

Again, one has to remember the point already made by one or two Members. When we think of a critical mass, we should think not just of a number but of whether that critical mass is there, in the main, in the Opposition. If it is not—even if you increase the membership to, say, 80 or 100—if you have a strong coalition between party A and party B that is responsible for, let us say, 70% of the membership, you still fail to have a critical mass where it counts.

We are not talking about mathematical representation; nor, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys—with whose address I wholeheartedly agree in the main—do I honestly believe that it is a matter of trade-off with local government or the House of Commons. If I remember rightly, the noble Baroness was not a Member of the House when this matter was discussed three or four years ago, when the proposal was carried to reduce the number of Welsh Members of Parliament from 40 to 30. I do not want to spoil the splendid feeling of unanimity that we have had up to now, at any rate on this issue, but the Liberal Democrats could have done better than they did on that occasion. We had a vote to give the Isle of Wight two seats. Not one member of the Liberal Democrats spoke on the issue of Wales. The real condemnation came not from the Opposition but from the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the grandson of David Lloyd George, who said, “My grandfather would not be turning over in his grave; he would have been in the Dwyfor by now”. That says everything.

The only other thing I have to say about that, which is on the face of it an attractive argument but possibly a dangerous course to take, is that in 1993 a proposal was before the House of Commons to reduce the number of seats in Wales—indeed, I think, over the whole country. The Home Secretary at the time was Mr Kenneth Clarke. He said, “No, as far as Wales is concerned, I am not having it. Wales is a land and nation with characteristics of its own and circumstances which are so special and so unique that I will make it an exception”. I do not believe that Wales is any less of an exception than it was in 1993.

The question then is: what should the number be? The Electoral Reform Society, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has properly referred, has examined 42 countries which are comparable with Wales in various ways. It has come to the conclusion, taking all things into account, that the average number for such sub-parliaments as those countries have—perhaps I do them less than justice in calling them sub-parliaments, but that is the term used by the Electoral Reform Society—is about 100. It also concludes in relation to Wales that the ideal figure would be of the order of 100.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, who has placed Wales eternally in his debt by his report of 2004, mentioned the fact that the committee animadverted on the question of whether the number should be 80 and said that it should, although it was not asked specifically to deal with the matter, nor did it deal with it scientifically or specifically. Nevertheless, it was a measured judgment. Now then: if it was 80 in 2004, bearing in mind the huge changes that have occurred since then, what would it be worth today? I hope that I do not take unfair advantage of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—I certainly would not wish to nor could I do that; he is well able to make his points for himself. If 80 was the genuine estimate that was appropriate in 2004, surely by today one should be speaking of 100.

I would speak myself of 120. Why? If you regard the curve of the development as a constitutional entity of the Welsh Assembly in the 15 or 16 years of its existence, one does not have to exercise a great deal of imagination to see where it might be in a few years’ time. The idea of aiming for 120 is not chimerical, irresponsible or populist—certainly not populist—in any way. It projects what one hopes and expects for in relation to Wales. I would be very surprised if the powers that have been given to Wales do not over the next few years amply justify that.

If we were holding this debate a month or two ago, I would still be making that point, but where do the promises and undertakings that have been showered on the people of Scotland, and the people of Wales and Northern Ireland, about devolution—those promises were falling like autumn leaves in Vallombrosa, as the quotation goes—bring us? If a quarter of what was promised solemnly will in fact be done, 120 could well be justified as the membership. However, it is not a question of numbers. It is more a question of prejudice: the vast storm of prejudice that anybody who argues for an increased number will have to face. That has to be done with courage and integrity. Edmund Burke famously said that for evil to triumph, it is necessary only for men of good will to do nothing. If you wish the Welsh Assembly to fail in its main purpose of being a legislature, all you have to do about the membership is nothing.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made his proposal for 120. I thought that one was reaching the point of, “Any advance on 80? Any advance on 100? Any advance on 120?”. Where does one stop?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I am deeply grateful to my friend for giving way. Perhaps I may make a point that I forgot to make. The real case for 120 is that it is very simple. It is exactly double the number now, and you can double both constituencies—the individual constituencies and the regional ones.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

That sounds a bit like double the number you first thought of. It is always good to follow the noble Lord. Certainly he cannot be accused of populism—perhaps courage, perhaps recklessness, but not populism.

I was tempted to go down his path of a second Chamber for Wales. There may, ultimately, further down the path, be a case for a second-opinion Chamber composed of some of the notables from the local authorities and elsewhere in Wales, but that is not a debate for today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, quoted, I think, the Electoral Reform Society, saying that these matters were too important to be left to politicians. That is a little patronising. The Electoral Reform Society consists no doubt of very worthy people who can help us by doing their analysis, but ultimately these decisions will be made by politicians, who have the experience and do not live in ivory towers. However, I agree with her that the whole matter—the matter of numbers—should be seen in the round and that one should look at the numbers in the Assembly and whether those numbers are capable of doing the job. One cannot exclude the number of those in local authorities. On that subject, I hope to move an amendment in respect of the recommendations of the Williams commission on amalgamations of local authorities in Wales, because I detect among the people of Wales a distaste for the number of people currently in the various authorities. Looking at it in the round, including local authorities and the Assembly, and not excluding the House of Commons, I am not convinced of her case for this House, because on the whole we have far fewer Members of this House than Wales warrants. That is, however, another matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, spoke simply and put forward a simple proposition. There is a consensus around his suggested figure of 80. The starting point is that, after a somewhat bumpy start, the National Assembly has now bedded down, is accepted as a proper part of the Welsh political landscape and has been a pioneer for the United Kingdom in several aspects of policy, as I find when I go into my local supermarkets and am charged for bags, a matter that will come to England somewhat later.

The amendment that I am speaking to will not, as politicians often boast, kill two birds with one stone; it will kill three birds with one stone. In respect of the equality of men and women, it is clear that although the position in the Assembly in Wales is better than in most other legislatures, certainly better than in the House of Commons, there is still a disparity. Many parties and many parliaments have struggled with this problem. Selectorates, often with a majority of women, are frequently reluctant to select women for various levels of representation. My own party tried women-only shortlists in both the 2005 and 2010 elections; in the 2015 election, my own Swansea East constituency will have a women-only shortlist.

However, that is not without problems, as one sees in Cynon Valley, and it can be a matter of considerable controversy. It can be a problem when men find it difficult to find a place in the areas where they were born, brought up and worked for a long time. They are demotivated when there is no chance, because of women-only shortlists, of standing in their own constituencies. I put forward this proposal as a serious option for solving the problem. It is a far more acceptable device for ensuring equality and would make Wales a world leader, consistent with our normal radical policies and progressive traditions.

The advantages do not stop there. My proposal would also abolish the list system. The list system has not been a success. I am reminded that “hiraeth” in Welsh is not a longing for one’s own region within Wales but a longing for one’s own valley, constituency, city or village. It is difficult to work up loyalty or attachment to a region in Wales. “My region, right or wrong”: I cannot see anyone in Wales going to the barricades to fight for their region. It is more consistent with our Welsh tradition not to have regional lists.

Thirdly and finally, I come to the increase in numbers. It goes logically with what I am saying that as the powers of the Assembly increase—and one does not know how far that will go, and here perhaps the consensus ends, because some will want a great leap forward while others will want a more incremental approach—there should at the same time be an increase in numbers. It is also clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, said with great clarity and power, that the number in the Assembly, the 60, may have been an appropriate starting point—the 40 and the 20. Indeed, there would have been difficulties had the number of 40 constituencies been reduced to 30—it would have been perhaps 30 and 30 at that point.

However, the numbers are clearly insufficient for the job of scrutiny. At the moment, particularly when there is a coalition, as often happens in the Assembly, everyone appears to have a job. It is rather like the jibes at the old Mexican army—everyone was a general, everyone had a job. We want to get away from that. We want people in the Assembly who are able to do a job of scrutiny and we should agree to have 80 of them.

There are three good reasons for the amendment. We should not be afraid of change. In terms of gender equality, the smaller units in Wales and the increase in the powers of the Assembly, which would be matched with a commensurate increase in numbers, this amendment is proper and consistent with our radical, trailblazing tradition in Wales.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, that was an extraordinary speech, if I may say so. We Gogs certainly have an identity, and we have an identity when we know that the south-east of Wales is spending the borrowing powers that it is acquiring on two tunnels on the M4 and putting a great deal of development into south Wales that we do not see in the north, where we have our own communication problems. To talk in terms of everyone being concerned about their little valley may do very well in south Wales, but I can tell you that in north Wales we feel very differently about it and we welcome the fact that we have regional AMs in the Welsh Assembly who can express a wider view than that of the little valley that they come from.

Although I am not overly enthusiastic about the list system, I will not see it dismissed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has done. Nor am I convinced by his idea that we should have proportionality of gender but not of political viewpoint. That would mean that the possibility of a dominant party would swiftly arise. My noble friend said that it would be the Labour Party. I would not go that far, because there are forces at work in some of the Welsh valleys today that are not essentially socialist in their approach. I am against the idea of having first past the post in Wales when it does not exist in Scotland or in Northern Ireland and when we have been fighting hard for it not to exist in England as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made the important point that the increasing amount of legislation coming to the Welsh Assembly means that we must have more Members to deal with it. I think that the consensus in Wales at the moment is that there are not enough people to scrutinise the legislation that is going through.

The noble Lord talked about scrutiny. The fact is that this is about not just primary legislation going through but primary legislation without the advantage of a second Chamber. Your Lordships will recall that I suggested earlier that we should surely be working towards a federal, single-tier Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, with committees for Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland that could scrutinise the legislation that comes through. As I said, if we have English votes for English laws that have to go through the scrutiny of this House, that will be a considerable advantage compared to single parties putting through legislation without adequate scrutiny. On primary legislation in Wales, there is a lot to be done, but what is not to be done is what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggests in his amendment. I wholly support everything that my noble friend Lady Humphreys so ably said.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I would welcome further explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, regarding his amendment. When he suggests that two Members should be elected from 40 constituencies, should the elector have one vote or two in that election?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Basically, whether it should be one or two votes is a matter that should be left to the Assembly. My position is that all these arrangements should be left, so far as possible, to the Assembly. It has mature politicians and it is for them to make those decisions.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, perhaps I might reply to my great colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by saying that if you have only one vote as against two, the whole composition of the Assembly, including the one that is to make the further arrangements, will be totally distorted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

That was by chance and by choice of the parties rather than by statute.

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord is seeking to guarantee that gender balance. I am normally very supportive of any initiative that increases the number of female elected Members but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, indicated, there would be an element of controversy. For example, if a female was elected as one of the Members and a male as the other Member, but the second male, shall we say, on the list had more votes than the winning female, or vice versa, there would be local controversy.

However, the main concern with this proposal is that it would reduce the element of proportionality. The offer of proportionality was intrinsic when Welsh people accepted the Assembly in the referendum. It was an integral part of what was offered.

The interlinked issues of the right number of Assembly Members, the optimum balance between constituency and regional Members and the system used to elect them need to be considered as part of the further step forward in devolution in Wales. If there are to be profound changes, there needs to be wider consultation. I know I will disappoint many Members when I say that I do not believe that the thinking behind these amendments is sufficiently mature for me to accept any of them. There needs to be further debate.

Wales Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble and right reverend Lord raises an interesting point and I will obviously take it away and think about it. In so far as thought has been given to this so far, we have been thinking about the scope of those reserved powers being included in legislation at the same time as the principle of reserved powers. There would possibly be issues and problems with separating out the principle from the scope of those powers, but I will certainly reflect on what the noble and right reverend Lord has said.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

On that point, potentially some substantial time may have elapsed before the principle of reserved powers comes into operation. The extent of the conferred powers has been shown by the Supreme Court judgment in fact to be highly flexible. To what extent has the Wales Office taken on board the effect of that judgment? Can we be assured that there will be no unnecessary legal challenges in future and that we have learnt the lessons of that judgment?

[Baroness Randerson]

Noble Lords can certainly be assured that, first, the Wales Office has studied that legal judgment very carefully and, secondly, that across government there is a determination to move ahead with devolution, and the development of devolution, on a cross-party basis, where it is possible to do so. There is a determination to ensure that we work proactively with the Welsh Government on issues. Indeed, that refers back to the Silk 2 recommendations, which included a number of mechanisms for improving relationships between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. That is very much at the forefront of our minds at this moment in terms of making progress.

In conclusion, our focus in the Bill is on implementing the first part of the Silk commission’s recommendations, and that must remain its focus. I urge noble Lords not to put the Bill at risk in the hope of something even better. Do not reject jam today in the hope of even more jam tomorrow. Use the progress in devolution that the Bill encompasses as a sound basis for further devolution. Do not for one moment entertain the idea that the best way of moving forward is to stand still and in some ways set this Bill aside and start again. We insist that this is a positive step forward and it is important that we demonstrate the cross-party agreement that exists on the further development of devolution.