Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Hain and Siân C. James

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hain]

I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, which directly answers the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am speaking about Wales. I am not aware of serial abuses of the kind practised in Wales prior to the 2006 ban occurring in Scotland. Indeed, I think that the codes that apply in Scotland may be different. I note that the then Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, Lord Steel, attacked dual candidature in terms very similar to mine.

Leanne Wood’s bible for dual candidature went on:

“We need to be thinking much more creatively as to how we better use staff budgets for furthering the aims of the party.”

She finished with a refreshing burst of honesty that, in an era of political spin, can only be commended:

“Regional AMs are in a unique position. They are paid to work full-time in politics and have considerable budgets at their disposal. They need not be constrained by constituency casework and events, and can be more choosy about their engagements, only attending events which further the party’s cause. This can be achieved by following one simple golden rule: On receipt of every invitation, ask ‘How can my attendance at this event further the aims of Plaid Cymru?’ If the answer is ‘very little’ or ‘not at all’, then a pro forma letter of decline should be in order.”

All the arguments and evidence I have cited in the past few minutes, in Committee and on Second Reading, demonstrate that the 2006 ban was not partisan but instead enhanced the democratic standards of all Welsh Assembly Members.

Indeed, I reminded the House at the time of the ban that six Labour Assembly Members, including three Ministers, would be defeated in the 2007 Assembly elections by a very small swing of 3% against them. They would not have the lifebelt of dual candidature, which I had removed; they would no longer enjoy the safety net of the regional list. Two of them subsequently did lose, as I said could happen. The reform affected Labour candidates and candidates of other parties alike, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made so eloquently.

In conclusion, the Government have now officially blessed this practice—presumably, they will marshal the votes shortly to try to defeat our amendment—and it appears that they are, sadly, doing so with the blessing of the Electoral Commission. I therefore look forward to Labour being welcomed into the fold of running dual candidates again. After all, why should we lose out while everybody else takes advantage? Never mind the voters, let us put our own self-interest as political parties first. I trust that the Government will be proud of bringing politicians in Wales into even greater disrepute than the political class right across the United Kingdom. Tellingly, the Electoral Commission is endorsing that disrepute and the Secretary of State is now smiling in anticipation of that happening. That is the consequence of his reversal of this ban; he is opening the door again to the serial abuses which have been documented and proved beyond doubt. He is going to invite that very abuse of democracy in Wales by removing the ban and installing clause 2, which is the reason for supporting amendment 13.

[Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I wish to speak briefly in support of amendment 13 and against the removal of clause 2. I oppose dual candidacy simply because if a candidate is not elected by a constituency under the first-past-the-post system, it cannot be right for them to be elected under the list system. If the electorate have rejected someone once as their first-choice candidate, it is not acceptable for them to have the opportunity to re-enter the game through the back door. In mainstream society people get one chance at a job; if they are not successful at an interview, they have to accept the decision and they do not go back squealing to the prospective employers saying, “Can we change the rules now? Can I possibly be appointed under different criteria or under a different set of interview processes?” Things should be no different for politicians. There should be no swapping or alternatives; it should be the same for everybody.

Let us examine the attitudes towards dual candidacy. We have heard a lot of pooh-poohing of the Bevan Foundation’s inquiry and report, but my constituency took part in that inquiry and I did not see any party members participating; those who participated all came from local community groups and pensioners groups, were not affiliated to any particular party and were not aligned to any political point of view. Some of them were sceptical about devolution and the political process, whereas others were very supportive of it. Those who participated sent a clear message saying, “We are really concerned about the way politicians are behaving on the dual list system and about what is happening.”

The report found that more respondents said that

“dual candidacy was unfair compared with those who felt candidates should be free to stand in both.”

Someone who was interviewed said:

“I think it is unfair…It’s like people can sneak in the back door.”

Another said:

“It seems unfair in a way, surely if they weren’t popular enough they shouldn’t be able to get in.”

There has also been international criticism of the dual candidacy idea. Moves have been made to improve things in New Zealand and in Canada, and Canadian research states:

“Voters are displeased with the case where a candidate is not successful in a single member constituency, but is elected anyway by virtue of being placed on the top of a party’s list.”

In further support of my argument, I give the example of the unfairness—this has already been mentioned by colleagues—in the Clwyd West constituency. It puzzles most people in Wales that it was possible for all four candidates on the first-past-the post list to end up being elected. When I got into politics, a very wise old bird told me, “Siân, don’t get into politics if you’re not prepared to lose, because there’s only one winner.” We have totally turned that on its head with devolution and now anyone can be a winner, as long as they are at the top of their party’s list. I think the public find that difficult to understand and they are puzzled by it.

Land Registry

Debate between Lord Hain and Siân C. James

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will come to the importance of SMEs, the role that they have in the process and how we must protect their interests.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the eloquence with which she is advancing her case. Is she aware that the proposal has cast a big shadow of uncertainty and job insecurity over the staff of the organisation, some of whom work in my constituency, which is nearby, and that when Tesco recently advertised for staff to open a local store in nearby Briton Ferry, 15 posts attracted 600 applicants? These are communities of very high unemployment, and job insecurity is therefore a big problem in the area.

[Mrs James]

It is. I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The Land Registry jobs are quality, well paid and well respected posts, and it is very important that we retain them in a mixed economy and give job opportunities and a way forward to people from all sorts of backgrounds. I am very loth to lose one job, of any type or description, from my constituency when, as he has just pointed out, they are all very important.

Have the Government failed to notice that the Land Registry has a customer satisfaction rating of 98%—a rating that many large-scale, international and well known organisations would love to have—that it operates at no cost to the taxpayer and that it made £98.8 million last year for the Treasury? That was used to reduce fees and to invest back into our everyday lives. Why is the Minister not standing up and congratulating that organisation on its effectiveness rather than swinging the sword of Damocles over its head?

The service users—every person in the UK who owns property—need a reliable, low-cost and secure land registration service that also guards against the ever-increasing crime of property fraud. Nothing in the current proposal provides any evidence that moving to a commercial model will improve the existing service, so I ask again: why mend what is not broken? The talk is rhetorical.