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

Debate between Lord Rowlands and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Grand Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to implement the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for Wales in four interim review reports in relation to the boundaries of certain constituencies and electoral regions of the National Assembly for Wales. If approved, these changes will alter seven of the existing 40 constituencies for the next Welsh Assembly elections, which are scheduled to take place in 2016. This is, however, subject to the commitment that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has given to look carefully at the implications of having different boundaries for Assembly constituencies and parliamentary constituencies in Wales.

I should perhaps clarify at the outset that the order affects Welsh Assembly boundaries only and has no impact on the boundaries of any Welsh parliamentary constituencies at Westminster.

I wish to put on the record thanks to the Boundary Commission for Wales and its secretariat for its work in carrying out these reviews. As always, the commission has carried out its duties thoroughly and conscientiously. I particularly thank the deputy chair of the commission, Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, for overseeing this work.

[Lord Rowlands]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister but he said that this order did not have anything to do with the parliamentary boundaries, so why does it have the words “Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions” in its title?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is a very good question and I hope that the answer I give will satisfy the noble Lord. He will know that this is an amendment order and it is amending the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006. However, I think we are clear that it will affect only the Assembly constituencies. A smaller number of people are affected. Nevertheless, for the electors and the relevant Assembly Members concerned, these are important. I am sure that MPs in the other place whose constituencies cover the areas affected will have been interested in the changes; indeed, they were debated there yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Perhaps I could just repeat what the noble Baroness quoted to me: my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales said at Oral Questions that she would seriously consider the point that was made. It would be wrong for us to prejudge the outcome of any consultation that could take place, but I assure the noble Baroness and the Committee that no change will be made without proper consultation. The Secretary of State has given a commitment to consider the point that was made to her in exchanges in the Commons, and that consideration is what she is currently doing.

[Lord Rowlands]

Why, therefore, is no such qualification included in the Explanatory Memorandum to the order? Why is there nothing saying, “Oh yes, but there may now be changes of the kind that the Minister is saying might happen”?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Quite simply because the Explanatory Memorandum is a statement of the effect of the order as the law currently stands, not a statement of policy. I hope that in presenting the order I made it very clear—I think I have repeated it twice now—that that is subject to the commitment that my right honourable friend has made. Just to be clear, the Explanatory Memorandum is a statement of what the effect of the order would be as a matter of law; it is not intended to be a statement of policy. I hope that clarifies the position. The Secretary of State is doing what she said in that exchange that she would do and considering what the effect is of the fact that there are implications of the disjunction.

My noble friend Lady Randerson asked me to confirm that that was the case in Scotland. It is indeed the position that the UK parliamentary constituencies do not match the Scottish parliamentary constituencies. I would be brave to say that the political parties necessarily find it easy but I rather suspect that individual members of the public, who at the end of the day matter most, have little difficulty in identifying their Member of the Scottish Parliament and their Member of the UK Parliament.

Perhaps for clarity, I should say that there is nothing at the moment in law or in any arrangements that would look at how Welsh Assembly constituencies would change. I say purely as a matter of fact that when the disjunction took place in Scotland, primary legislation was brought in in Scotland to make provision for a separate boundary review of the Scottish parliamentary constituencies. Let us not interpret that as in any way a commitment that we are about to bring forward legislation, but that is factually how that position has been addressed in the longer term in Scotland.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I cannot answer that question because there is no answer to it at the moment, other than that, having established boundaries, clearly they cannot go on for ever. The very nature of our system is that the boundaries should be regularly updated. We now say that UK boundaries should be done on a regular basis every five years; previously, as I have indicated, it was done every eight to 12 years. It is clear that at some stage some mechanism will need to be put in place to allow an update of the boundaries, but it would be presumptuous and premature of me to speculate now on when that would be, and indeed on whether we will use the same people to do it and what the criteria would be for these boundaries. That is a debate for another day. There are no proposals. However, the noble Lord was right to identify the fact that, as there is a disjunction, there has to be a mechanism at some point for updating the boundaries for the Assembly.

[Lord Rowlands]

I apologise, but if there are changes of the kind that are being foreshadowed, would they require legislation and where would that legislation take place?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am almost certain that it would require legislation and it would be Westminster legislation, just as with Scotland when as a result of a disjunction there was primary legislation in 2004. I am as certain as I can be that that is what the position would be.

This debate has been useful because it has brought out a number of important issues, and I am sure that there will be further discussions when the Boundary Commission for Wales produces its proposals for the Welsh parliamentary constituencies. I very much valued the historic insight into the boundaries between Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, where the noble Lord served with distinction when he and I were colleagues in the Commons. Since then, people have come and gone over a number of years, and this is perhaps just the latest instalment; I am sure that there will be many in years to come when our successors are sitting here or in the other place—with whatever role this place has in a century’s time. On the basis that in the terms of the order there does not need to be any dispute, I commend the order to the Committee.

EU Committee: Court of Justice of the European Union

Debate between Lord Rowlands and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first, I join the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Anderson—the three of us not being members of the committee—in congratulating my noble friend Lord Bowness and the members of his committee on this important work which they have undertaken. I think the first call for evidence was in the summer of 2010 and that the report was published just one week after the president of the Court published his proposals. The fact that it was timely shows the foresight of the committee in identifying what is undoubtedly a very important issue.

I believe that the report’s conclusions and recommendations have been a valuable contribution to the current debate. We have heard those conclusions and recommendations echoed in the contributions this evening, which I will seek to address. It is important that we take this opportunity to discuss these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked what the Government believe in. They believe very much in the effective and uniform interpretation, application and enforcement of European Union law across the Union, which was a point well made by my noble friend Lord Bowness in his opening remarks.

We believe that the Court of Justice has a vital role to play in ensuring that member states and European Union institutions act in accordance with the treaties. It is therefore essential to the functioning of the single market that it ensures that there is a level playing field for United Kingdom businesses operating in other member states, and vital in upholding the rights under European Union law of British citizens living and working in other member states. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Dykes, who emphasised that the Court has that important role in safeguarding the rights of people who are not only United Kingdom citizens but citizens of the European Union.

Accordingly, the Government share your Lordships’ views that the Court of Justice of the European Union is in need of reform in order to work through its sizeable backlog of cases and to reduce the time taken to process cases in the future. I can confirm that since the publication of the committee’s report, officials have been engaged in discussions with their counterparts in the European Union about reform of the Court, following on a set of six recommendations made by the president of the Court to the Council. Discussion has continued between officials and at ministerial level on a bilateral basis and within the Council. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, asked about that. I can confirm that there have been meetings. In July, the Minister for Europe raised the issue at the General Affairs Council. As I have indicated, discussions continue at a working level, most recently on Friday of last week. The Government are engaging constructively in these meetings with an open mind. We certainly see merits in a number of the recommendations, to which I will deal with in more detail.

I am sure your Lordships’ House will forgive me for not divulging the details of working group discussions, which by their very nature are confidential, but I can indicate in the broadest terms that officials of the United Kingdom Government have been focusing on negotiating changes to the Court’s structure and its rules of procedure, which would enhance the quality of the Court’s judgments and reduce the turnaround time of cases while emphasising—it is important to emphasise this and to remind ourselves of the need for—cost efficiency. In the current economic climate, it is vital to ensure value for money for our taxpayers, and the proposals that the Court makes must be assessed according to financial and budgetary implications. Indeed, I think that even the summary of the conclusions of the committee’s report acknowledged that there were cost implications.

As the debate has made clear, the most significant reform under discussion is the composition of the General Court and specifically the question of how to expand its capacity. I will perhaps deal with that in more detail later. We know that the committee proposed an increase of one-third to 36 members. The president of the Court has tabled a proposal to add to the number of members of the General Court by 12 judges, which is of course one of the key subjects under discussion within the Council. As has been identified, and as I will elaborate, there are other possible options, such as the creation of a specialist trademark court or specialist chambers within the General Court, for managing trademark cases. Officials are considering how each would improve the efficiency of the court, the political and legal implications that they would have and the financial ramifications.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, asked whether there was an imminent crisis. Although we recognise the huge challenge with regard to the General Court, the report itself, as well as contributors to the debate this evening, recognises that the Court of Justice has done a remarkable job in managing its case load. It was in that context that we did not accept that there is an imminent crisis with regard to Court of Justice—I think the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, said “potential crisis”. Clearly this is something that we want to focus on to ensure that it continues to build on the advances that it has made.

The report itself recommended that there should be the appointment of extra Advocates-General. It is not clear what evidence this is based on. Significantly, it is not one of the proposals which the Court itself felt was necessary when the president of the Court put forward its proposals. Other measures have come forward from the president of the Court that we would aim to assist: the possibility of the appointment of a vice-president, and the proposal with regard to how grand chamber might be restructured. We are looking at that seriously. We want to ensure that, in doing so, there is continuity, across the courts, of the jurisprudence of the Court. That particular proposal is somewhat complex.

On the issue that was described in your Lordships’ report as the “green light”, we would not necessarily go as far as that but we think it is of considerable importance, when national courts are framing their reference, that they do so concisely. We would certainly encourage them to put forward any proposal and conclusions that they may have reached in framing that reference, so that when the Court of Justice looks at these preliminary references it is very focused on the particular issues.

My noble friend Lord Bowness made some specific points, reminding us that the Council also legislates. Those points were extremely well made. Certainly the Government are seeking to ensure that there is clarity not only for those who subsequently have to interpret the law in the courts but perhaps most importantly for those who have to implement the law in their businesses and daily lives. That is certainly the objective of the negotiations, but I think it is also fair to say that, in a negotiation involving 27 member states, that objective is not always as easy to achieve as one might hope.

A similar answer applies to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, and my noble friend Lord Bowness about the legislative implications of certain decisions. Perhaps that should not be a counsel of perfection. It ought to be given attention, but again I suspect that that is easier to say, and to make exhortations for, than it is to deliver in the legislation itself.

[Lord Rowlands]

Does the noble and learned Lord accept the fact that, as a result of the change in jurisdiction, there is going to be a very considerable increase in fast-tracking procedures within the Court of Justice and that this will have very considerable consequences for the rest of its workload?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord raised the point about the possibility, post-Lisbon, of fast-tracking and asked whether there was going to be a significant increase. There are issues there which need to be considered. There is not yet any evidence of that coming through, but it is not something to which we are turning a blind eye. According to the Court of Justice’s report on its work in 2010—after the Lisbon Treaty came into force—the use of the urgent preliminary measure in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice was requested in six cases, and granted in five. It is of course relevant to the work of the Court of Justice in its consideration of preliminary references, which is its other main volume of work. It is less relevant in the case of the General Court, which does not do that kind of work. I shall come onto that, as there is agreement across the House that there are quite clearly issues as regards the work of the General Court.

We fully recognise that there are issues that need to be considered in terms of the particular problems which the General Court is facing. Justice delayed is justice denied: it is a phrase which trips off the tongue, but it is one with substance and truth. The position of the General Court is one to which we are giving our attention. The proposal on the table is the one that has come from the President of the Court. It is that there should be an increase in the size of the Court by nine. The House has reasonably asked about our position with regard to the consideration of a specialist trademark court or specialist chambers within the General Court. We see merit in the proposal put forward by the committee of your Lordships’ House of increasing the number and we are considering it against our basic criteria of quality of judgments, their timeliness and cost-effectiveness. That is why we are not ruling it out, but why we also believe that some of the other options ought to be given consideration too.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, referred to the letter sent on 4 July by my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe to the noble Lord, Lord Roper. He pointed out that while he recognised the point that judges on a specialist tribunal may not be widely deployable, creating a specialist tribunal would free up judges in the General Court currently working on trademark cases to deal with other types of case. It is important to note that judges currently dealing with trademark cases, which form a substantial part of the General Court’s work, would be freed up for other work. The Commission itself said in its response to the President’s proposals, published at the end of last month, that it has looked at the possibility of specialist chambers within the General Court. It is important that these options are fully explored with regard to what will deliver the best in terms of efficiency, speed and quality of judgment.

However, as I have indicated, we cannot ignore the question of finance. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Dykes that in the totality of the European Union budget it may appear a small matter, but nevertheless it is the Government’s position that there should be no increase in real terms over the next spending period. We want to examine the costs of the different options. The estimate of the Court itself on an increase of 12 judges is some €13 million. We would want to drill down on that and ask why the cost is more than €1 million per extra judge. We would also wish to look at the fact that the Court has had over the past year an underspend of €5.5 million. It is not unreasonable, in exploring the different options, to bear in mind the costs and to try to ensure that we not only achieve what is best in terms of speed of delivery, but also that there is efficient use of taxpayers’ money—not just that of British taxpayers, but of taxpayers throughout Europe.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, said, we recognise that delay sometimes brings its own costs, and that must be part of the equation, but we feel that considerably more work could be done, not least given the fact that there was a €5.5 million underspend of the Court’s budget last year. Obviously, as the committee itself indicated, it may be possible to find funds by deprioritising other parts of the budget.

I hope I have emphasised the fact that the Government take this issue seriously. We appreciate the constructive proposals that have been put forward. As I have indicated, we are not ruling out the possibility of an increase in judges. At the present time, the proposal on the table is for an extra 12 judges, which has come from the President of the Court. We are giving these matters detailed consideration through working groups and at ministerial level. We are also conscious that the outcome in the end should be to ensure that the Court of Justice, as one of the institutions of the European Union, delivers and serves the wider purposes both of the Union itself and of European citizens. They should be on the receiving end of justice when the call comes for it. I hope that I have reassured your Lordships that we are taking this matter seriously and working diligently to get the right outcome in terms of speed, quality and cost-effectiveness.

National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Housing and Local Government) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Rowlands and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Grand Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Grand Committee does report to the House that it has considered the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Housing and Local Government) Order 2010. For ease, I shall henceforth refer to this order as the housing LCO. This is the first LCO that I have spoken to in this House. It is a particular pleasure to deal with devolution issues that relate to Wales after many years of being more familiar with devolution issues that relate to Scotland.

This draft housing LCO was approved by the National Assembly on 24 February. The previous Government laid the draft LCO before Parliament in March. For whatever reason, no time was found to debate the LCO in either House before the general election. I am pleased that the coalition Government committed to take forward the housing LCO in our programme for government, which is what we are doing. The draft LCO was approved by the other place on 7 July, having been debated in Committee on 5 July, and it comes before this Grand Committee today for debate only two months after the coalition Government took office.

Noble Lords may be aware of the discussions that have taken place between the coalition Government and the Welsh Assembly Government in relation to the scope of this LCO. I shall address that issue immediately. The coalition Government have been concerned that this LCO devolves legislative competence that the Assembly would not necessarily need. The Assembly Government are committed to seeking legislative competence to suspend the right to buy in areas of housing pressure. However, competence in the LCO covers disposals of social housing generally, including abolition of the right to buy. Indeed, as I understand the situation, when an LCO on this issue was first proposed in 2008, the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place recommended that it should not proceed while it included the ability to abolish the right to buy. We are grateful indeed for the reassurances given by the Welsh Assembly Government that they are fully committed to the right to buy scheme and have no intention whatsoever to abolish it.

The coalition Government are similarly grateful for a further reassurance from the Assembly Government not to seek powers to usurp the views of local people and dictate the location of Gypsy and Traveller sites. Given these assurances, and our commitment to progress this order through Parliament before the Summer Recess, I am pleased to support this LCO today.

[Lord Rowlands]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but as this is a vital point perhaps we might clear it up straightaway. He says that an assurance has been given, and I am sure that that is true, but paragraph 7.23 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that,

“legislative competence would enable the Assembly, if it so wished, to replace the current Right to Buy scheme with improved and updated schemes to assist home ownership”.

That suggests that the Assembly might abolish the scheme but replace it with something else. Does the present competence order still allow the Assembly to do such a thing?