Wales Bill

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly and with a note of apology. I was ill, which no doubt saved your Lordships a lot of time in Committee and on Report, so this is just a last-gasp intervention to say that I support the amendment, which seems highly desirable and long overdue, and I congratulate the Government.

I want to make one point in relation to my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who has raised the important question of whether this is the way to change the constitution. The truth is that we have no way of changing the constitution; it is a matter of an extremely haphazard nature. The last time that we changed the constitution was with the Act of Settlement in 1701, which took a synoptic view, but which is a little early for even this noble House to consider. There is no way of changing the constitution rationally, and there should be. I have always supported a codified, written constitution, and I profoundly hope that when the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee reports, it will accept that, partly because I am one of the authors of the report that it is considering, so naturally I support that proposal.

There have been so many illogicalities in considering Welsh devolution such as—I understand that this was discussed when I was not here—why the Welsh Assembly should not have reserved powers, why the Welsh Assembly should be the victim of an asymmetrical form of devolution and why the Welsh Assembly did not have financial powers in the first place. No clear logical view was entertained for any of those questions, and we therefore proceed empirically and haphazardly. In this case, we are considering simply whether it makes sense, not whether it is in what you might call an agreed constitutional tradition or follows a convention. Clearly, it does make sense; it is not possible to have young people aged between 16 and 18 in Scotland able to vote but not in Wales—there is no rationality in that. Why should Wales yet again be the victim of constitutional illogicality in a country that prides itself on its constitutional illogicality, showing that its constitution is not therefore unwritten?

That is the settled view of the National Assembly, and it is clearly beneficial in itself, as many noble Lords have said. Young people are able to make a strong contribution, as indeed, as the noble Lord said, they did in 1886. Lloyd George, whom he knows about, is an example of a young Welsh schoolboy who took a very active part long before he was able to vote or enter the House of Commons. So on the merits of the case, on the merits of the value of an input from a thriving and important part of the Welsh electorate, and because there is otherwise no logical or constitutional rubric why we should exclude Wales from this change, I certainly support the amendment.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I rise on account of two matters about which I have strong feelings. One is the Act of Settlement of 1701. Although my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, of Aberdyfi, whom I may call my noble friend, is total and absolute, I still have doubts about whether that Act is indeed one that Parliament does not have in its sovereignty the right to repeal. The Act of course settled the succession of the Crown; it said that the succession should devolve upon the Electress Sophia and the heirs of her body, and of course the relevant heir of her body was George Lewis, the Elector of Hanover, George I. It seems to me that Parliament, being sovereign, could repeal the Act of Settlement any day, but that is by the by—I have said my piece.

The second matter is that I support the amendment, which seems to be based on very sound principles. One we have already have adumbrated, and that is the fact that it is a matter for the Welsh Assembly, which is the parliament for the land and nation of Wales, to decide on the right to vote and what age should dominate in such a situation. That is a healthy principle, and one that has been steadfastly upheld by my friends the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Wigley, as Members of the Assembly and indeed as Members of this House. When the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 and jurors were entitled to sit at the age of 18, there were siren voices of caution. Looking fairly and objectively at the evidence, it seems that there was no justification for panic at all. It has worked well in the courts and in relation to Parliament.

The main point is one that has not been made: it is that age is relative to the situation you are dealing with. The age of 18 was decided, if I remember rightly, just before the 1970 election; in other words, 44 years ago. Could one not reasonably argue that a young person of 16 now is probably as mature mentally and physically as such a person 44 years ago? Society is changing rapidly all the time. Standards of health, learning and understanding are improving, and on that basis there is ample justification for this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, following the decision to reduce the voting age in the referendum in Scotland, young people distinguished themselves during the campaign with their level of participation, and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Rowlands, on the statistics. However, I share a lot of the views of the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cormack, on the manner in which this issue is being dealt with. It is piecemeal and haphazard. There has been no systematic debate. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made a point about the reduction from 21 to 18, and there will always be an argument. We all accept that. Why not 15? We can make any argument we want with justification of one degree or another. That is not quite the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was trying to make. The point was that it came out of left field from negotiations between Mr Salmond and the Prime Minister and is being reflected in the Bill. Of course, it would be a very brave person who came to the Dispatch Box and defended not putting it into the Bill in view of what happened just a few weeks ago in Scotland. What possible justification would there be? However, I ask the Minister to reflect and to pass back to her colleagues the fact that there is no process here. It is just random, along with a long series of other constitutional aberrations.

[Lord Morgan]

Can the noble Lord suggest any example of constitutional change since 1997 that has not been piecemeal or haphazard? We are following exactly same—he is quite right—unsatisfactory practice, so we are considering the merits of the case.

[Lord Empey]

I participated in a process that was anything but haphazard. It took two years to work out our settlement in Northern Ireland, which then came to Parliament to be debated and enacted. There was a process. As I understand it, the noble Lord’s party believes in a constitutional convention or a commission of some description, whatever we call it. We should not be precious about it. Those are all perfectly meritorious ideas. My point is that the change introduced by the Bill, which follows the process that happened in the Scottish referendum, inevitably has implications for the electorate more widely. We have a position whereby 18 year-olds will be voting next May and 16 years-olds will not, yet the decision that many 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland took two months ago was very important. People could say it was of greater importance than a general election.

The point I am trying to make, which I ask the Minister to pass back to her right honourable friend, is on the concern that this is one further example of a haphazard attempt to change our constitution without any structured debate or rational process. I look forward to hearing her response to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the statistics. However, I will make another, tangential point, which applies whatever referendum takes place, whether on tax or anything else.

When the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked about transport and the roads, to some extent he hit the nail on the head. Scotland is, of course, an independent country which has shared its sovereignty with the rest of the United Kingdom; Northern Ireland is separated by sea from the rest of the United Kingdom, while Wales is not. You go from one side of the street to the other, from somebody’s back gate, and you are in Wales. Clearly, that means that unique issues need to be discussed when devolved powers are exercised. Again, there is no structure for that; there is no process or long-term debate, and we are basically making changes on the hoof. This process issue is a mistake.

Wales Bill

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the King’s College group which has produced a plan for a written constitution, currently being considered by the House of Commons constitutional committee. I cannot, I am afraid, declare an interest in the House of Lords Constitution Committee because I have been kept off it.

I therefore speak from the Back Benches with the independence that that conveys, and do so by giving the Bill my very strong general support. As has been pointed out by other speakers, it is a remarkable change for the Conservative Party, which opposed devolution and primary legislative powers, and the former Secretary of State, who spoke against the Assembly having taxing powers. So when the Prime Minister in Cardiff recently declared that this is a Government who believe in Welsh devolution, that was a very remarkable conversion worthy of events on the road to Damascus a long time ago.

This Bill has many excellent features from the small—like the name of the Assembly Government—to implementing the bulk of the first report of the Silk commission on taxation. One concludes that we have a coalition Government of repentant sinners—who, we are told in the good book, have a better than even chance of entering the kingdom of heaven.

I want to say something briefly about the Assembly and its character and a little about the policy it should pursue. I pray in aid not a Welshman but a Scotsman, Gordon Brown, whose contribution to the Scottish independence debate has been outstanding, and who has many important things to say in his latest book on the constitution more generally.

It is clearly important that the powers of the Assembly should be revised. It was a big conceptual mistake that the Welsh Assembly did not have reserved powers from the very beginning. It had the drip-drip of conferred powers. No intelligent reason was given why this should not be done as it was in Scotland. I do not think, with respect, that any intelligent reason has been given this afternoon. It seems to me that it is bound to happen as part of the wider constitutional changes which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said will follow the Scottish referendum whatever the outcome is. As the Silk report has said, it would make matters clearer and make for greater coherence and consistency. It would also bring out the meaning of what devolution actually is. It is really rather humiliating to have powers determined for you by another assembly. I think that this would strengthen the Assembly, and would make the Welsh Assembly as Gordon Brown would wish to see the Scottish Parliament—namely an entrenched, permanent part of an updated constitution, and an updated written constitution, I hope. I hope to see that and, as people have said, for that to be treated as a matter of urgency.

On the size of the Assembly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, that 60 Members is nowhere near enough. The Richard commission argued strongly for it. This is a very small number of Assembly Members who are not in the Government to carry out the processes of scrutiny. I remember raising this with the previous Secretary of State but one and inquiring why the Welsh Assembly did not have more powers. She observed that the public mood did not favour having more paid officials. I recall asking her why in that case the Government had suggested creating 300 more paid politicians in the upper House, but there was not a response to that.

I think that the length of the Assembly should be determined by the Assembly; it should not be told by another body for how long it should conduct its operations. As a responsible and dignified body, it should decide for itself.

On the policy changes, much has been said about the borrowing powers. That is the central feature of the Bill and will enable the Welsh Government, or should enable them, to take on far greater powers to improve the economy and infrastructure in Wales. The borrowing amount of £500 million is, as was said, far too timid—I think that “chicken feed” was the expression that I heard on my left, which seems rather accurate. It is based on a measurement which is different from that of Scotland. There is nothing divinely created about it and I am sure that it will be looked at. It is profoundly necessary after the public sector cuts that Wales has endured in the past four years that it should have the ability to expand through its borrowing powers. There is a stronger case now for greater borrowing powers because the Welsh Assembly is to have much greater powers and to be able to do more things. Silk has virtually argued that the same measurement should be used for Wales as for Scotland and I do not see why that should not be the case.

I welcome the thrust of the Bill on taxation. As we said in the debate on the Scotland Bill, there should be no representation without taxation. We now have powers for stamp and landfill duties, which will give the Welsh Government more of an independent income. On income tax, I would hope that the Labour Party, of which I am a member, would be less apprehensive. It was noted in the New Statesman a week or two back by Professor Adam Tomkins that the Labour Party had lost out in the debate on Scotland by being too timid and, having set up devolution, not spelling out what it was for. I hope that the Labour Party, which is, as it has always been, the dominant party in Wales—or has been since the First World War at least—would be less apprehensive about that. One can see the apprehension about tax competition and about the Treasury using income tax variations for its own purposes, but this is a matter on which the parties should be quite clear—for that matter, I support what the Labour Party has said about perhaps increasing to 15 pence the amount of income tax that could be devolved to Wales.

I do not think that we need a referendum. We have had quite enough referendums in Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, showed proper apprehension at leading or even taking part in any such debate—it would be one of the lower turnouts on record. Politicians of both sides have been passing the buck on this one. There was no referendum in relation to the Calman proposals for Scotland. Why should there be for Wales? It is a humiliating cop-out—to use the vocabulary—which is unfair.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

There was of course a referendum in Scotland which the Labour Party provided for when devolved taxation was introduced.

[Lord Morgan]

Yes, I accept that. At any rate, in this case, I think that the argument against a referendum in the Silk commission report is profoundly the case and I strongly support it.

What I think is quite wrong, however, is to have income tax devolved at all while the Barnett formula continues. The formula was shredded by the Holtham report; it was shredded by the House of Lords committee. I do not know whether a stop-gap can be well past its sell-by date but—if those metaphors are in any sense reconcilable—that is the main point that has come forward. We have had a conspiracy of silence on all sides about the Barnett formula. The Labour Party had one or two debates on it in this House which were not at all sensible. The Conservatives have had their own discussion which quite falsely linked the Barnett formula with the accumulation of national debt, which it has nothing to do with. The Liberal Democrats have not been particularly vocal on it. Plaid Cymru has attached the Barnett formula to an extreme version of Welsh nationalism not particularly favoured since the days of Owain Glyndwr. UKIP has attached it to English nationalism, which seems to be equally unfortunate. In a way, the “none of the above” candidate would have a strong vote from me in that debate.

Proper government in Wales has been a long and hesitant process. It began in perhaps unlikely fashion with the demon drink in 1881, when the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act began the principle of Welsh legislation. This Bill is a welcome milestone, but it needs a wider vision linking the arguments in Wales both with the important and highly relevant debates on independence in Scotland and with the forthcoming debate on a referendum for Europe, which may not come for two or three years but will most certainly affect the attitude of Welsh people towards devolution and towards participating in a United Kingdom where England is perhaps strongly Eurosceptic. Hence, Gordon Brown has urged that a new constitutional settlement be adopted to bring together all these different themes and to make, as I have suggested, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly permanent and irreversible.

This Bill shows how Wales has been a casualty of the process of stop-start change that we have had on constitutional reform for many years. The constitution has been correctly described by Professor Anthony King of the University of Essex as a “mess”. Wales is one area that has suffered from this mess. I would hope therefore that the mess could be cleared up by having a constitutional convention to provide a holistic look at all these aspects: the union in this country; the union with Europe; and the relationship between the different nations within the United Kingdom. I hope that we will have a vision supplied—perhaps even by the Constitution Committee here, of which I shall not be a member—and that the people of Wales will benefit. Nevertheless, that this Bill is a very helpful and hopeful start is incontestable.

Northern Ireland

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point—that is, to refer us to the past and indirectly to point out the terrible situation that existed prior to the existence of the Parades Commission. It is important to bear in mind that there are many hundreds—thousands—of parades at this time of year in Northern Ireland. The city of Derry/Londonderry, for example, has done a superb job in making sure that its parades are successful and enjoyable and that they do not cause trouble. I had an extremely interesting meeting with the mayor of Derry/Londonderry, in which he pointed out the very simple and straightforward ways in which the sting has been taken out of the situation in that important city. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness when she says that the Parades Commission has widespread support. The vast majority of the public in Northern Ireland are not interested in a return to the problems of the past.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, Griffith observed that Irish history was trapped between the dead past and the prophetic future. Is this not a particularly tragic and all-too-familiar example of it? This is exploiting a battle that happened well over 300 years ago for sectarian provocative purposes. It seems to me that the problems lie far deeper than simply the social and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland. Could there not be a totally different way of celebrating the cultural and historic traditions of unionism? By definition, these events are going to be violent and produce casualties. We know that they are—it happens every year. They are as much a part of the calendar of our country as, let us say, Remembrance Sunday, and they have equally sad connotations. Is there not some peaceful historic or cultural way of celebrating unionism rather than these provocative battles? If not then frankly it is not worth celebrating.

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord, coming from the same part of the world as I do, is well aware of the importance of history to us all. It is of course extremely sad when history becomes so embroiled in violence. I say to him that it is important that as the years go by the people of Northern Ireland are able to embrace the future, and to let go of the past while not ignoring or neglecting it. They should be able to celebrate it in a positive way. I point to the importance of the Derry/Londonderry City of Culture in that transition process, because it does not shy away from the traditions and problems of the past. It embraces them and makes them part of a cultural experience.

Empowerment and Responsibility: Financial Powers to Strengthen Wales

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, the Silk commission indirectly draws attention to a fundamental weakness of the devolution settlement, with Wales consistently subordinated for what are said to be historical reasons but which are in fact quite unhistorical reasons. It is an asymmetric settlement that has in some respects undermined the Welsh Assembly. As we know, it had no primary or legislative powers until 2006. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, the Barnett formula is persistently unfair. You can see it as a stop-gap created a long time ago, based on archaic and now quite unfair calculations, and it has been shredded, first by the Holtham commission in Wales, and more recently by an extremely powerful Lords Select Committee, which included at least one former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Above all, the Silk commission points out the inadequacy of representation without taxation. The democratically elected Welsh Government do not have the resources either to promote their objectives or to achieve accountability with the Welsh elector when they spend money that they do not raise. The Silk commission addresses this, and I hope that the Government will respond. So far we have heard the sound of silence, particularly from Conservatives. I notice that no Conservatives are speaking in this debate, so I hope that the Liberal Democrat Minister will be more communicative.

The Silk commission underlines the weaknesses of the present situation in key respects. First, it shows that, almost uniquely in Europe, Wales has a democratically elected Assembly that does not have taxing or borrowing powers. It is fundamentally undermined by being denied that basic authority, which has been fundamental to many of the great upheavals in the history of the world; not only, as everyone knows, to the American Revolution but to the Civil War in this country and the coming of the French Revolution. We have representation without taxation, which is no basis for a democracy.

Secondly, the Silk commission shows that the baseline of the block grant is determined in an arbitrary fashion, and that this has led in practice to its being reduced in size year by year.

Thirdly, as we have heard, the discredited Barnett formula complicates matters, and we await a settlement on that. We have had discussions about the Barnett formula for many years. The coalition has replied with speeches of total irrelevance, claiming that it is a problem of the debt, which is not germane to the issue. The Labour Party replied with unmitigated waffle. We heard waffle in debate after debate, which did not advance the argument.

Finally, the Silk commission shows that the borrowing powers that the Welsh Assembly has are, in effect, not under its control but under the control of the United Kingdom Treasury, which sets those powers against the block grant in such a way that Welsh resources do not increase overall. Again, therefore, authority in financial matters does not lie with the Welsh Assembly. The formula encapsulated in the famous phrase, “For Wales, see England”, is still being played out.

The Silk commission makes two major proposals, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, explained. First, it proposes that the Welsh Assembly should have the power to raise its own taxes. It lists, as we heard, a variety of taxes such as stamp duty, landfill and air passenger duties, but the most important is income tax. The devolution or transfer of income tax to the Welsh Assembly would be central, and would enable the Welsh Government to do things that they cannot do now and to have a clearer horizon in terms of economic planning. Furthermore, the prospect is raised—although not, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, with total clarity—of the ability to vary the rate of tax at the top, standard and bottom ends of the tax scale. The Silk commission is cautious about this, but it is a principle that is bound to grow and extend. Rightly, the Silk commission states that there has to be engagement on these matters between the Welsh and United Kingdom Governments, but it seems clear that this is the way we are moving in terms of devolution being implemented in a much more complete way.

It is interesting that the Silk commission for Wales is more radical in some respects than the Calman commission for Scotland, in that it raises the issue of varying taxes. Secondly, it raises the issue of the power to borrow for capital purposes. There would be a stronger case for borrowing if the Welsh Government could vary the size of its budget through taxation to meet the repayment of loans. It is, as the Welsh First Minister said, a very strange system under which Welsh local authorities can borrow on the open market, say from the European Investment Bank, but the Welsh Government cannot. This greater power to borrow would give the Welsh Government the flexibility to meet variations in income and would make them more accountable.

Silk points the way to a more pluralist United Kingdom. It affects the whole of the United Kingdom—which may need a codified constitution—but its proposals cannot be put into effect until Barnett is dealt with. At the moment, the Welsh Assembly is locked into an unjust system that gets more unfair every year. Therefore, the Silk commission proposals cannot be implemented immediately. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will find the will to deal with both the matter of raising more resources for Wales and securing a more honest and honourable system for their distribution, which is lacking today. Above all, I hope that the Government will communicate and tell us what they are going to do.

Welsh Government: Tax-varying Powers

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

It is important to bear in mind that the Government look at each of the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments and balances one against the other. They each have individual circumstances, individual rights and a different devolution settlement from the other devolved nations of the UK.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, the Silk commission admirably proposed a valuable extension of devolution by linking representation and taxation. Nevertheless, is not the Welsh Labour Party correct in saying that we cannot properly resolve these matters until there is fair funding for the Welsh Government, which means the abolition of the Barnett formula?

[Baroness Randerson]

I draw the noble Lord back to my previous answer which related to the statement in October from the two Governments. That made it clear that in relation to the Barnett formula there was an agreement between the two that, if convergence were to start to occur again, there would be discussions with a view to establishing a mechanism to ensure a fair system for Wales.

David Livingstone Bicentenary

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I understand that the house to which my noble friend refers was where David Livingstone stayed in Tanzania, in Zanzibar, prior to the start of his final expedition in 1866. There are no current plans for the United Kingdom Government to provide a contribution for the renovation of the building but I am aware of my noble friend’s interests in this matter and I will certainly ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of the relevant department.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, we are prone to celebrate the more exploitative and squalid aspects of empire in the history of this country and many of its practitioners are celebrated in key points of our squares and roads in the centre of London. David Livingstone surely embodies the humanitarian and idealist strain that we ought to honour, so could we perhaps have a statue of him as well?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am not sure about a statue, but the noble Lord makes an important point. It is perhaps worthy of note that in post-colonial times, place names such as Blantyre in Malawi and Livingstone in Zambia have remained while other pre-independence names have been changed. That is a reflection of the esteem in which David Livingstone is held. Some of the themes that he focused on in his life—themes such as faith, education, medicine, the abolition of the slave trade and standing up for those who are exploited—are ones that we would do well to ponder. Maybe the best memorial that we can give him on the bicentenary of his birth is to take seriously the kind of issues that he took seriously in his lifetime.

Wales: National Assembly Elections

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, after the powerful declaration by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that this is a matter for the people of Wales and no one else, I rise with some trepidation. I do not even have the advantage of a name that can be brilliantly transposed into Welsh by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan—

[Lord Morgan]

Foulkes is a Welsh name.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Nor was I going to pray in aid the fact that I was born in Oswestry, because that is three miles over the border. However, as my noble friend said, there are some justifications for me to be able to speak in this debate.

[Lord Morgan]

Is my noble friend aware that his name actually begins with two little fs?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Not any more, I am glad to say, because that would be very difficult. It is bad enough having a title without having two little fs in one’s name, especially in Scotland.

In an excellent and articulate speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, said that this was a matter for the people of Wales—as did the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I took it that they meant the elected representatives of the people of Wales—we are not going to put everything to a referendum. We live and work in a devolved system and there are representatives of the people of Wales in this Parliament and in the National Assembly. This is devolution. We are not separate. We remain part of the United Kingdom and we still have a responsibility within this Parliament. We must exercise it with caution and care, but we have a responsibility.

This is not a party-political point, so I shall try to put it in a different context. I am genuinely worried that in a unicameral system such as that of Wales, if my party achieved an overall majority in both the Executive and legislature, it could change the electoral system so that it had even more of an advantage on a permanent basis. That would be wrong. We have to remember that checks and balances are needed in what I hope will remain a devolved system. I hope that this Parliament will be the check and balance that ensures that our devolved Parliaments do not do anything anti-democratic.

My second point echoes what my noble friend Lord Touhig and others said about the piecemeal nature of constitutional reform. In deference to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I accept that my own Government did not consider fully the implications of the constitutional reform we undertook. We did it with the best will in the world, and I supported it because I had been a devolutionist for a long time. I campaigned for it as far back as the 1960s and 1970s. However, to some extent we did not work out all the consequences or anticipate some of the unintended consequences. It is important to draw lessons from that. We should learn from experience, and so I say to the current Government: be careful about what you are doing with this piecemeal constitutional reform.

As others said, we have many balls in the air at the moment. In Wales we have the Silk commission with two remits. Scotland will take a monumental decision, probably in 2014, on whether to remain part of the United Kingdom. That will have implications not just for Scotland and England but for Wales and Northern Ireland. Those have to be taken account of as well. We also have Sir William McKay—the other day I called him Bill McKay and was told off—heading a commission on the West Lothian question. We do not know when he will report or what he will say. My noble friend referred to the elephant in the room being the Scottish referendum. It may be the elephant, but we also have the rhinoceros of Lords reform. There are major things that will affect what we are doing. That is why I wonder if it is wise to press ahead so quickly with constitutional change in Wales.

I also wonder whether it is wise because there have been problems with the system. We have ended up with a dog’s breakfast not just with constitutional changes but with the electoral system. For those standing for seats in the European Parliament there is a list system. I shall take Scotland as an example. For the UK Parliament we have first past the post, for the Scottish Parliament we have AMS—which I shall come back to in a moment—and for local government we have STV. I have always been a strong supporter of first past the post. People will accuse me of being a tribal Labour loyalist, but I support it for a variety of reasons. They include stability of government, and the identity and accountability of the elected Member with the constituency. While I recognise that things have moved on, perhaps we should simplify the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, suggested STV for Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections. At least that would simplify and improve things to some extent. It should be looked at.

The existing system of AMS is almost the same in Scotland as in Wales. We have constituency Members and additional Members. Like the noble Lord, Lord German, I was a regional or list Member. There are two different kinds of Members. I confess that it was much easier for me as a regional Member to be without the constituency burden. I was a constituency MP for 26 years and I know the burdens. I did not have them as a regional Member. That is one thing that is wrong with there being two types of MSPs or AMs with different roles and pressures.

There is another thing that is wrong, relating to standing for both bodies. We, as a party, for three elections stopped people standing for both; and then we realised that that position was impossible to sustain. What happened was that initially—in 1999 and then in 2003—we held most of the constituency seats. Most of the SNP, our main opponents, were regional Members. The regional Members targeted a constituency seat, set up an office, adopted a candidate for that seat and challenged the local Member. That created problems as regards Members’ relationships with officials, and with MSPs of different parties raising the same kind of questions on behalf of constituents. That certainly created problems.

The other thing that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said about bringing in the AMS system was that it was to benefit the Labour Party. I wish to goodness that that had been the case. The Labour Party benefited from the previous system. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, knows this as one of the conspirators who achieved it on behalf of his party—although he was perfectly entitled to do it—knows that he and the Liberal Democrats negotiated with Labour in Scotland and managed to achieve the additional member system, which was replicated in Wales. I mean no disrespect, but Wales followed on and it strongly benefited the Liberal Democrats. I can understand why they are so enthusiastic about that system.

There are many things that need looking at. Even David Steel—I am sorry, the noble Lord, Lord Steel—who is one of the architects of this system, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and others, is now disenchanted with the additional member system and thinks that we need to review it. This then relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and others about the size of the Assembly. We are trying to make an artificial arrangement and assist the Government into having a 60-Member Assembly. It is a system that will not work with 60 Members, and having 80 does not seem to be a great improvement. I must say that a figure of 90 sounds about right. Of course, some people will throw their arms up and say that it will cost more money. I defended MPs’ salaries, which was not popular, but if 90 is the right number, we should have the courage to stand up and defend that view, and say that in order to have proper scrutiny, and a Government and Opposition who operate well, there needs to be more Members—especially if more and more is being devolved to the Welsh Assembly, there should be proper scrutiny of education, the health service and other devolved areas.

Then there is the question of double-jobbing. I had never heard that phrase until I read this Green Paper. I do not know who made it up. I do not think that the Minister had heard that wonderful expression. I think that officials suddenly came up with it. It is right to say that you cannot do both. If you choose an arbitrary point at which you must give up one seat when you get another, you have to be careful. Some degree of flexibility is needed. If there is still the AMS system for constituency vacancies, there must be a by-election. For regional vacancies, the next person on the list takes over. However, what happens for an independent Member? I hope that this never arises, but my lovely friend Margo MacDonald had to retire during her term in the Parliament. There is no mechanism for replacing her. That issue needs to be looked at, and I tried to raise it during our discussions on the Scotland Bill. The whole system needs to be reviewed, but this does not deal with that at all. It makes it worse. It does not deal with any of the problems properly; it makes them a great deal worse.

My plea to the Minister is this: go back to my good friend Cheryl Gillan. She is a Scot as well, which is interesting—

Universities: Fees

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I recognise the sensitivity of the issue—and the tenacity with which my noble friend pursued it in Committee and on Report. It is totally in character that he should continue to do so. As I indicated, fees are only one part of the question. Different student support arrangements are in place in different parts of the United Kingdom. Support for English students, including English students studying in Scotland, is more generous than for Scottish students studying in Scotland. The universities in Scotland have also made generous bursary arrangements for English students wishing to study at Scottish universities. It was suggested on Monday that there should be pan-UK discussions on the matter. I indicated then that I would relay that to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That proposal has been relayed. However, I do not wish to raise unrealistic expectations. It might be useful for Administrations in all parts of the United Kingdom to come together and discuss the issue.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, why are university vice-chancellors thought to be so passive in this matter? We were told the other evening that they had no alternative, and that the lawyers had explained this to them. We were told that they could not revise their financial calculations. University vice-chancellors are supposed to be chief executive officers capable of responding quickly to sudden changes. Why can they not act to remedy an obvious injustice that stains the good name of their universities?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it was not the university vice-chancellors but the Scottish Government to whom legal advice was given about the limitations with regard to European Union law. The noble Lord asked about vice-chancellors. I received a letter from Steve Chapman, the principal and vice-chancellor of Heriot-Watt University, urging me to resist my noble friend’s amendments. That shows that universities in Scotland have been responsive. He wrote that universities had put in place arrangements that meant that English students were not disadvantaged if they chose to study in Scotland instead of England, including the availability of bursaries and other forms of financial assistance at a level that was at least as high as that offered by English universities.

Scotland Bill

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morgan]

I intervene very briefly, not as a member of the Labour Party but as a former vice-chancellor. The present situation is deeply harmful to the very concept of a university. Universities are founded on the ethic of equality, whereby all students should be treated the same. We have legislation to deal with some of the more harmful aspects of discrimination—with regard to racial matters, for example—but the current situation is a fundamental breach of that principle. The situation is harmful in two respects. There is a divisive principle at work, whereby students doing the same work in the same institution are not treated the same.

[Lord Vallance of Tummel]

Such divisiveness already occurs as regards international students. The only foreign students who are treated differently are other European Union students.

[Lord Morgan]

That was not my experience as vice-chancellor, and I reject that argument. The situation is divisive and is more extreme than in Wales. I regret what has happened there, but at least Welsh-origin students have to pay something. In a sense, they all suffer because there is top-slicing of the grant for higher education. In that sense, the situation in Scotland is more extreme than in Wales.

The other concern is that the Scottish situation works against one of the fundamental principles of universities, which is that they should not be politically instrumental or be the agents of political discrimination. That is precisely what is happening and it is not only at total variance with the spirit of universities in this country—including the great universities of Scotland that are the famous cradles of the democratic intellect—but hostile to the spirit and ethic of universities everywhere. It will get worse. University policy and finance is deeply fluid. The situation is not static. The unfairness will grow. There will be a growing gulf in claims on students of Scottish origin and those from elsewhere in the UK. For the sake of universities and for the sake of Scottish universities—the great institutions—we should not found our university higher education policy on these extremely bad and unfair principles.

[Lord Wilson of Tillyorn]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. I declare an interest as a chancellor of one of the Scottish universities. I seem to be one of the very few people who has not received a briefing from Universities UK, Universities Scotland or anyone else.

There is no doubt that Scottish universities benefit enormously from having students from outwith Scotland. Whether they are from the rest of the UK, Europe or the rest of the world, they are very beneficial. There is also no doubt that it is uncomfortable to have students from, say, Northern Ireland, sitting next to students from the Republic of Ireland who pay different fees. It is not a happy situation. However, the reality is that the financing of universities in Scotland is a matter devolved to the Scottish Government. I cannot believe, even though I hope for the day when the situation is evened out, that it is right or practical for your Lordships’ House to legislate to change the financial structure of Scottish universities. I hope that the situation will be resolved over time, but I cannot believe that it would be right for us to legislate, and I would feel obliged to vote against the amendment.

Scotland Bill

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment because it has enabled there to be a discussion about the potential role of devolved government in the protection of interests in overseas discussions. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, said. I cannot believe that it is helpful, in seeking agreement across borders on issues that might affect us, for British representatives to be unable to speak with one voice at the official negotiating level.

The proper time for those discussions is prior to the engagement in the international debate. It is not meant to put a ban on representation by individuals who have some democratic authority. The amendment may well be defective in that respect, as the noble Lord has recognised. However, let us consider the situation in reverse. If we, as a British Government, were under the impression that we had to deal not just with the Spanish Government on fisheries policy but with a Catalan Government as well, it would hugely complicate our negotiations. I am bound to say that so long as the nation state remains, we should be dealing internationally and not with devolved Governments.

The representation of points of view is quite a different matter. It would have been helpful—to answer the question that was thrown back at me—if there had been a full dialogue between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government about the al-Megrahi case. I am not sure that there was not, in fact, such a dialogue; it as remained rather obscure, but it is certainly important to Britain’s position vis-à-vis some of our allies that we were not thought to be in complete ignorance of the Scottish Government’s position. It led to some deterioration of understanding between the United States and the United Kingdom that there was no absolute clarity about who was essentially to take responsibility for the release and return of al-Megrahi to his homeland.

[Lord Morgan]

I will make one or two remarks as a non-Scottish person, although the purpose of this amendment in part appears to be to give the Scottish National Party a good kicking. That is a very desirable objective in many ways. Coming from Wales, I am very glad that we do not have a party with the bitter Anglophobia that is frequently revealed by the Scottish National Party. In Wales, we concentrate on other things, such as beating other countries at rugby and speaking our own language.

In wishing to criticise the Scottish National Party, I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has just said. We must be careful not to give the impression of imposing a uniform pattern on the ongoing process of devolution. It is about difference; it is about differentiation; it is about pluralism—and it is very difficult to impose any kind of check on that. I recall that Mr Gladstone famously said, “You cannot put a stop to the onward march of a nation”. That can apply to nations within the British Isles as well.

The question was raised by various noble Lords about what kind of foreign representations we were proposing to monitor or have Foreign Office checks on. There are already, of course, as other noble Lords have said, enormous ranges of foreign contacts, particularly with the European Union. It would be very difficult to distinguish between foreign contacts that needed control from Big Brother at Westminster and other kinds of contact where that was not appropriate. The real point is that there is a kind of mistaken assumption that a devolved Scottish Government—whether it be devo-max or even going beyond that, if that actually took effect—would somehow impinge on the sovereignty of the British Parliament.

The word “sovereignty” was used by my noble friend. Views of sovereignty have moved on a great deal since it was brandished by Dicey at the end of the 19th century as a kind of inalienable set of powers that, if they were diminished, would inevitably disappear. There are all sorts of ways in which the sovereignty of this Parliament is fundamentally affected and transformed. At the present time, human rights legislation has done that, our contact with Europe has done that, and devolution has certainly done that. In the famous phrase, this is a process and not an ongoing policy that comes to an end.

If you look at the concept of sovereignty within the context of some other countries, you have a very different view of sovereignty. It emerges as a much more flexible concept; it is not like a cake that you take a piece out of and that piece never reappears. Look at the länder of Germany, which pursue an enormous range of contacts on industrial, economic, agricultural and social matters with other countries, enormously to their success. It has been a feature of the success of Germany, particularly the länder such as Baden-Württemberg, that their economic prospects have flourished because they have been allowed to be independent in this way and not controlled by a central Government. This is the purpose of devolution, and I think this is more likely to be about the success of devolution than about differentiation. In wishing to criticise the severity and extremism of the Scottish National Party, we must be careful that the extended implications of devolution are not criticised as well, because they are enormously valuable for the well-being of our country.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I have two brief points to make. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, had to say on these matters and I will not repeat the arguments. I would just like to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Maclennan. One of the big low points in my political life was seeing the saltires flying in Libya when al-Megrahi landed there. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has been kind enough to say that perhaps his amendment is not the most felicitously drafted. Its substance, however, is that Ministers in the Scottish Parliament can of course make representations and meet delegations and travel abroad, but they should not pursue an independent foreign policy.

Until now, we have enjoyed a Civil Service that has kept Ministers in check and within the bounds of their responsibilities. I say with regret that there is a certain amount of evidence that that is not happening in Scotland at the moment. The Scottish National Party is perfectly entitled to have a policy that states that Scotland should withdraw from NATO. Why it has that policy, I do not know; everyone else is queuing up to join NATO. However, it is not entitled to advance and advocate the policy within the confines of the devolved Parliament, because foreign and defence policies are not the business of that Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I knew that he was not from Edinburgh but I did not realise that that stretched to all parts of Scotland. I know what a distinguished diplomatic career the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has had but, with due respect, although there are not any Scottish nationalists here—there is a Welsh nationalist—as my noble friend Lord Maxton said, the invitation has been made to them. Some people within the SNP, notably Mr Peter Wishart MP, would like them to accept. I hope that they will and I urge them to accept the offer to have SNP Peers. Just because they have not accepted, that should not gag this House from debating this matter. We are part of the British constitution and the legislation of this country. It would be wrong to inhibit us because they do not take up the offer.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made a good point about the role of the Civil Service in encouraging the SNP in some of their policies in relation to the break-up of Britain. I urge him to take a look at my Amendment 73, because it will give him another opportunity to debate this issue in more detail, particularly some of the astonishing actions of Sir Peter Housden.

I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Morgan, who is a most distinguished Labour historian. I accept his admonition to be careful in this. I would also ask him to have a wee look at what some of the more extreme nationalists are saying. To use the old phrase, some of my best friends are nationalists. I even had some at my famous birthday party, which my noble friend Lord Browne revealed in a previous debate, and I get on with them very well. But we should look at some of the outpourings of the more extreme nationalists. They talk about “English colonialism” as if Scotland has been colonised by England. They liken Scotland to India or some African states and say, “We must throw off the yoke”, when all of us know that many of the colonialists were in fact Scots, not English.

[Lord Morgan]

I am sorry to interrupt the entertaining remarks of my noble friend. I am glad that he made the point that we do not have that kind of bitter Anglophobia, but there is a danger of throwing out the nationalism of the SNP with the national sentiment of Keir Hardie and the founders of our party. We are the pluralist party, and that is very important.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I accept that. My title, as my noble friend Lord Morgan knows, is “of Cumnock”. Keir Hardie lived there and is buried there. That is why I chose it as my title. One of his planks was home rule. There are some others that I do not agree with quite as much, but with home rule I certainly do.

[Lord Morgan]

Temperance.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Indeed. Temperance is one other. I accept what my noble friend said. I shall move on because the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will raise important matters for discussion in relation to finance that we want to participate in.

The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, raised a very interesting question with regard to Al Megrahi. My noble and learned friend Lord Boyd knows much more about it than any of us here and I do not want to go into the detail. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I did not like seeing the saltires waved when Megrahi arrived at the airport in Tripoli. I thought that the way in which the Justice Minister in Scotland dealt with it was entirely wrong. However, to suggest, as some people have, that it was Tony Blair who told Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill to release Al Megrahi is just manifest nonsense. Even if he had, which he did not, can you imagine them doing his bidding on this? However, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. It is important in relation to co-ordination between the various parts of the United Kingdom.

I want to say to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that I forgive him for his disarming intervention, which I really enjoyed. He and I have been good friends for a long time. We were talking about membership of NATO in relation to policy differences. There is also the question of the deployment of Trident. I do not know if I am giving away a secret when I say that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will shortly be publishing a report which might be of interest to noble Lords. I also thought that his suggestion in relation to Canada might have some advantages. We could look at precedents with regard to protocols between provinces and federal Governments as we move towards a more quasi-federal or federal solution here in the United Kingdom.

Last and certainly not least I turn to my noble friend Lady Liddell, the Secretary of State emeritus, who as always made a most helpful contribution. She reminded us that the Malawi co-operation was in fact agreed with the Department for International Development. Interestingly, I was one of the Ministers in DfID when it was agreed. When the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments work in areas that are complementary to the work of the United Kingdom, we help each other and it is really enriching. I can see the Whip making an interesting face at me, so finally I must say that I shall withdraw the amendment.