Wales: Commission on Devolution in Wales

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we have not had a Lib Dem spokesman yet.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank my noble friend for raising two new issues, the first relating to the question for the referendum. The Government’s response on this has laid great emphasis on how well we believe arrangements worked for the previous referendum on full legislative powers. In that case, the matter was very much in the hands of the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly in consultation with the UK Government. However, there was a very important role for the Electoral Commission, whose advice was taken and was pivotal. I hope that the Welsh Government will lead the call for a referendum and that the situation in Wales will enable them to lead that call relatively soon. It is important that the Welsh Government feel that they are in a position strongly to call for a referendum, because the UK Government believe that the joint statement of October 2012 meant that there was agreement between the two Governments on the way in which future funding for Wales would be dealt with.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, the document accompanying the Statement states:

“The precise levels of capital borrowing will … depend on the outcome of the income tax referendum”.

Twenty years ago when I chaired Gwent finance committee, I borrowed £37 million from the European Investment Bank and paid it back on time. If a county council had such borrowing powers 20 years ago, why cannot the Welsh Government now be trusted to borrow to invest according to their own assessment of their ability to service that debt, rather than wait upon a referendum?

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord makes an excellent point; I, too, was a councillor a long time ago. We should bear in the mind that councils raise a significant amount of funding via what we nowadays call council tax. Therefore, their level of borrowing depends on their level of tax receipts. The UK Treasury is proposing exactly the same model for the Welsh Government.

Wales: National Assembly Elections

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will be relieved to know that I will do my best not to repeat the excellent arguments that have already been put to the Committee, but I am caused to ask this question: what are we doing? This is only the second specifically Welsh debate we have had in your Lordships’ House during this Parliament, and what are we debating? Are we debating the impact of the double-dip recession on the people of Wales, a recession made in Downing Street? No, we are not. Are we debating the lack of economic growth or high unemployment? No, we are not. Are we debating the mean and spiteful cuts in benefit support for disabled people and the poorest people in Wales? No, we are not. Are we debating the Remploy factory closures, which will see hundreds of disabled people thrown out of work, and who will probably never get another job in their lives? No, we are not debating any of these things. Instead, we are debating constitutional reform again. I feel sure that I can report to noble Lords that in the pubs and clubs of my former constituency of Islwyn, they will be talking about nothing else. While hard-pressed and hard-working families struggle to make ends meet and keep their heads above water, this Government seem to be obsessed with constitutional change.

It was only on 11 October last year that the Welsh Secretary, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, set up the Silk commission and gave it two tasks. First, it was charged with reviewing the case for the devolution of fiscal powers to the National Assembly, on which it was asked to report by the autumn of this year. Secondly, it was given the task of reviewing the powers of the National Assembly, on which it is to report by 2013. Barely six months later, finding that she cannot wait for the commission’s report, the Welsh Secretary has surfaced once again, this time with a Green Paper on the future electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales. How I wish the Welsh Secretary were here to answer the debate this afternoon. Although it is not possible, it would be far better than meeting Peers behind closed doors. However, we are fortunate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will respond. I know that I am not alone in admiring and respecting the Minister, who is held in high regard and with a deal of affection on all sides of the House. I feel sorry for him now that he has been asked to front-up the Green Paper for the Secretary of State for Wales.

I begin by asking the Minister what discussions the Secretary of State had with Paul Silk and his commission before embarking on the exercise of producing the Green Paper. Did she ask commission members what they thought of the idea of producing a Green Paper while they were in the middle of their deliberations? Did the commission consider that the Green Paper would undermine its task? What opinions and advice did the commission give to the Secretary of State? Will the Minister give us a full report of the discussions that took place between the Secretary of State and the commission, and perhaps also publish all correspondence on the matter? I suspect that while the Silk commission was busy carrying out Mrs Gillan’s task, she bypassed it and published the Green Paper.

The Government are obsessed with tinkering with the British constitution while bread and butter issues that affect most people I know are marginalised. For the past two years since they have been in government, this has been their main thrust.

[Baroness Randerson]

I was very interested in what the noble Lord said. Does he agree therefore that the Labour Party was obsessed with tinkering with the British constitution when it introduced devolution and other significant changes, including to this House?

[Lord Touhig]

There is a huge difference between what the Labour Party did in government and what this Government are doing. I shall develop the argument and thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to do so. For the past two years, the main thrust of the Government’s legislative programme has been about constitutional change. For a start, we had the biggest act of electoral gerrymandering—the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was more generous than me about this—with the Bill to reduce the number of parliamentary seats. It was all done for party advantage. The legislation was put forward by the Conservatives and warmly embraced by the Liberal Democrats. Government MPs and Peers trooped through the Division Lobbies time and again to reduce the number of representatives from Wales by a massive 25%. While the Labour Party and others valiantly tried to defend Wales, we witnessed the enthusiasm with which the Conservatives and Lib Dems forced through the reduction in the number of Welsh MPs.

How quickly that enthusiasm has evaporated. It evaporated when the Boundary Commission completed its review and produced the first draft of its report on 30 new parliamentary seats in Wales. If the report is accepted, Conservative and Liberal Democrat representation from Wales in Westminster will be all but wiped out. I judge that the governing parties are not as enthusiastic as they were about reducing the number of Members of Parliament for Wales.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was designed to keep this failing Government in office no matter what happened. As a result, it is no longer enough for a Government to lose the confidence of the House of Commons before they lose office. It is now necessary for two-thirds of the Members of Parliament to vote to throw them out of office. The Bill is a blemish and a stain on Great Britain’s long and cherished democratic system of parliamentary democracy.

Here in the United Kingdom, we are proud of our past. We are proud of the fact that we moved from empire to Commonwealth. We see ourselves as the fountainhead of democratic government, which we tell ourselves is the envy of the world. We were encouraged and flattered when many newly independent Commonwealth countries followed our example of a representative parliamentary democracy. However, I contend that if the Government of one of our Commonwealth partners were to use such a blatant act of gerrymandering to stay in office, Great Britain would be the first to challenge and charge them. I have no doubt that the Liberal Democrats would be at the forefront of such a condemnation and would probably want that country thrown out of the Commonwealth. What high ideals and great principles a once great party of liberty has traded for a handful of ministerial red boxes.

In the middle of all this, we have the referendum in Wales on more powers for the National Assembly. I had some reservations about this, not so much about passing over more powers to the Assembly but about the fact that it represented a further piecemeal tinkering with our constitution, chipping away here and there rather than looking at the big picture. Capping this constitutional onslaught, we have the Clegg Bill to abolish your Lordships’ House and give our country 400 more paid politicians, who will have guaranteed highly paid jobs for 15 years, doubtless with a pension. I know people who would like a job—any job—let alone one guaranteed for 15 years. The Remploy workers would certainly like a job guaranteed for the next 15 years.

Finally, as my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely said, we have the elephant in the room: a referendum in Scotland that could see our union split apart. Will all this constitutional tinkering never end? The Minister could do no better than go away from this debate today, reread this little blue book—I am sure he has already read it—and take up its sound advice. It recommends that we have a constitutional convention looking at the whole of the constitution of the United Kingdom, and stop this piecemeal tinkering with our constitution.

This Green Paper is a bit thin. It poses four questions, but why so few? If we must go through this process, there are many more questions that ought to be asked and answered. As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, now that the National Assembly has primary lawmaking powers, is it able to scrutinise the Executive and hold it to account? I am certainly not suggesting more Assembly Members—although I know that some people think we should have at least 80—I am simply asking whether, in view of the major lawmaking powers now held by the National Assembly, its Members can adequately scrutinise legislation. Can the Opposition hold the Welsh Government to account in a way that we would want them to do?

Moving on, should we not be asking about the system for electing Members of National Assembly? Frankly, the present system is barmy. I know it was introduced by my party; then again, madness and being a member of the Labour Party are not necessarily mutually disqualifying. It is a barmy system. In Wales we have 40 first past the post elected Assembly Members. On top of that, we have an electoral top-up system of 20 Members, which gives the party with the most votes no seats and the party with the least votes seats.

Take the last election: setting aside the election of 40 first past the post seats—I know some of your Lordships believe we should have a different system, as has been well articulated today—in the election for the 20 top-up Members of the National Assembly, the Labour Party polled 37% of the vote and got two seats. The Liberal Democrats, with 8% of the vote, got four seats, and the Conservatives, with 23% of the vote, got eight seats. In the North Wales region, Labour got 32% of the vote and no seats. The Liberal Democrats got 6% of the vote and one seat. In South Wales Central, Labour won 41% of the vote and gained no seats. The Conservatives won 22% and gained two seats and the Liberal Democrats, with 8%, got one seat. South Wales West was even more bizarre. Labour won a massive 46% of the vote and did not gain a single seat. The Liberal Democrats, with 7% of the vote, got a seat.

Is it not funny how the Liberal Democrats always gain the lowest vote but always end up as winners? I am sure their Conservative colleagues in government have come to understand that that is their working relationship. Certainly, it is a puzzle to me. I suppose it is what happens when you have coalitions. I just hope that the leader of my party will recognise that those who get the lowest votes often end up on top in these kinds of situations.

The electorate of Wales do not understand the present system, so why does the Green Paper not consult them? Further, if we are to have a PR element— I favour first past the post rather than PR—why do we not split the first past the post election from the election for top-up Members? The public would then vote for the party candidate of their choice in the first past the post election, and the party of their choice in the constituency part of the election, and their choices would be elected. Giving the electorate what they want might seem novel, but at least they would understand what they were being given.

On the whole there has been a negative reaction to aspects of this Green Paper—to what it does not ask rather than what it does. It is a friendless Green Paper. Not even the Conservative leadership in the National Assembly will support it—and if the largest party in government will not support it, why should we?

[Lord German]

My Lords, I start by saying how much I welcome the views of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, which I presume do not represent the mainstream of the Labour Party, or the National Assembly would not have been created in the first place. Perhaps it would be useful to trace a little of the electoral history of the Assembly prior to 1997 and 1999. I first declare my interest as being in receipt of an Assembly pension. Also, last week in my absence, I was elected a director of Cymru Yfory, which is campaigning for the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to have 80 National Assembly Members elected by single transferable vote. I will say more about that later.

On the history behind the electoral system for the National Assembly, some of us were engaged in discussions prior to the 1997 election of the Labour Government about how the Assembly should be elected. It was clear that those who favoured a National Assembly were not of the view that it should be dominated entirely by one party throughout its existence. Therefore, proportionality was an important facet of the proposals that were brought forward in the Bill of 1998. At the time, we were told by Ron Davies, the Labour leader on Welsh issues in Parliament, that the deal he could get through his party was the one that we ended up with in 1999, and which went into the 1998 Act. There was no doubt that it was fudged so that the Labour Party at some stage would have a majority in the National Assembly, but on most occasions would not. That was the political imperative driving the way in which the system was devised.

As a result, the system is not as proportional as that in Scotland. We must recognise that. We do not have the system of representation that the Scottish people enjoy. I will return in a moment to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, because I have a list—of which I would like him to take note—of members of the Labour Party who stood as constituency candidates in the most recent elections to the Scottish Parliament, and also stood as members of their party’s list. I will relate the list in a moment, but that is why we are where we are. Clearly, the campaign that started with the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was a move towards trying to make those changes.

Of course, some of us would like the changes to be made more quickly, but we are where we are because of other legislation that has come before us. I remind my noble and learned friend—we have been involved in these matters together for many years—that the Government of Wales Act 1998 states:

“The Assembly constituencies shall be the parliamentary constituencies in Wales”.

The Government of Wales Act 2006 states:

“The Assembly constituencies are the parliamentary constituencies in Wales”.

If that is the case, we will have to accept that the number that the Boundary Commission comes up with—which could be 29, 30 or 31—will be the number of parliamentary constituencies in Wales, and we could see a reduction in the total number, because 20 would remain.

The status quo cannot remain even if we retain the current 60 Members. It is quite right and proper that if we are going to hold the current position—and I have talked about where I want to see the position go in future—then we will have to have change. Those who argue for the current position will also be arguing for legislative change. Therefore, we have to consider the Green Paper that is before us.

There are some problems with a dual mandate of people putting their name on both sides of the ballot paper. However, in general terms, all you are doing is giving parties the opportunity to present their best candidates. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to Elaine Murray, Sarah Boyack, Lewis Macdonald, Claire Baker, Richard Simpson, David Stewart, Linda Stewart, John Mackay, Kieron Green, Donald Crichton, Gordon McKenzie, Greg Williams, Jean Morrison and Kevin Hutchens, some of whom were elected to the Scottish Parliament and all of whom were on the party’s regional list as well as being constituency candidates. This is perfectly appropriate and the Scottish Labour Party did the right thing by allowing the best people’s names to be put forward. Some of those people, who were preferred by the Labour Party in Scotland because of their talents, were duly elected to the Scottish Parliament.

The issue of the dual mandate has become somewhat different over the years. At the beginning, some Members of Parliament chose to put their names forward and stand for the National Assembly for Wales. For those who gave and devoted their time to it, it was a very useful and helpful device because parliamentary experience came to the National Assembly at the same time as experience from those who came from local government or who came with no political experience. Since those early days the trend has been the other way and Members have gone from the National Assembly to the House of Commons. As it is a full-time job, it is important that both the National Assembly for Wales and this Parliament should have full-time people elected to one or the other as swiftly as possible. The political parties have themselves been engaged in a regime with their own rules to ensure that this happens as rapidly as possible. The Green Paper proposes speeding this up so that it is dealt with more quickly than the current arrangement of waiting for the next election. There are powerful arguments for saying that if you are elected to do a full-time job, it should be done in one places.

On the balance of regional Members and constituency Members, we have not today raised the respective roles of regional Members and elected first past the post Members. I am the only person in your Lordships’ House who was elected as a regional Member in the National Assembly and I know very well that there are tensions. However, there will always be inbuilt tensions between Members of Parliament of different parties. If in a constituency there is a Member of Parliament from one party and a Member of the National Assembly from a different party, there will undoubtedly be tensions. The reality is that the elector has more choice. We can deliver choice to the electorate through proportionality. Another way is through creating a healthy tension between Members—not always of different parties—by having them elected to represent constituents. I do not see the jobs or the tasks as different, but the ability of the elector to choose and work with different elected Members is very helpful. I am therefore in favour of reinstating the names of regional candidates on the ballot paper.

The issue that we face today is whether we should debate constitutional issues relating to Wales and not other matters. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that we will have a debate tonight on the Remploy issue. It is a named debate brought by the Liberal Democrats on an issue where there is unanimous support from all the disability groups named in this document for the changes that are going to take place in Wales. Of course, the only opposition that the independent study found was from the Labour Party and the unions. So we will have the opportunity to have these discussions in the Chamber.

[Lord Touhig]

Is the noble Lord now telling me that the Liberal Democrats support the campaign to keep the factories open in Wales, or are they going to do as they did before and support closing them?

[Lord German]

The Liberal Democrats support the policies that are evinced in this document—

[Lord Touhig]

Closing the factories.

[Lord German]

No—I ask the noble Lord will be patient for just a second. The position is that the Government have provided for groups of employees and their supporters to come together with options for building and retaining their own independent operations. That is what was recommended by the government report, that is what we are supporting, and that is in fact what will happen to a number of factories. If noble Lords want to engage in this debate, they can do so later this evening in the Chamber.

I was going to spend some time talking about the benefits of the Sainte-Laguë formula over the d’Hondt system but I will resist the opportunity to indulge myself. I will talk about five-year terms. I believe that the elections should be on different dates. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, it is not just about different manifestos but about different electoral systems. The Scottish experience of having an STV election on the same day as an election by the additional member system for the Scottish Parliament was very difficult because there were different arrangements and people had to mark their ballot papers in different ways. On top of the issues of manifestos and focus, it is right that the elections should be separated and that this should be locked in by having a five-year cycle for all.

In conclusion, the Green Paper is a very important document for discussion, and we will have an opportunity to debate it further. It raises crucial issues, all of which must be dealt with because the status quo is no longer suitable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate, which has been very useful. First, I acknowledge a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I was indeed aware that the origins of the name Wallace come from the Shropshire-Wales boundary; I think the names are very similar. That only proves to me that we are pretty much a mongrel island and therefore those who would try to artificially break it up should reflect on the fact that peoples have moved around these islands for centuries. That may be one of the things that bind us.

The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, asked why we were debating this as opposed to many other issues. I think it is a red herring to claim that if you are focusing on one thing you are completely ignoring other issues. There is no doubt that the Government are absolutely committed to pursuing the economic objective of recovering the country’s finances from the situation we inherited in May 2010. Very often that is not done by legislation, and just because we are focusing on one or two items of legislation does not mean to say that we are taking our eye off the ball on the fundamental issues of the economy.

I would welcome more debates on Welsh issues, be they economic or otherwise. Having served in the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and the House of Lords, the ways in which the usual channels move are mysterious and wondrous to behold, but I am sure that we will try to find other opportunities to debate Welsh issues, and that there will be general support for that on all sides of the Committee.

[Lord Touhig]

I am most grateful for that commitment from the Minister. As the grandson of Katie Wallace, I knew that I could always trust a Wallace.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord is my kinsman.

A number of noble Lords raised questions about the voting system and the size of the Assembly, so I should perhaps say at the outset what this consultation paper does not try to do. It was never the intention that it should open up these far more fundamental issues. It was clear from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that there is no consensus on the size of the Assembly. Although this is not an issue for this consultation paper, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on the need for scrutiny, and the presidency—or vice-presidency—of the organisation to promote an Assembly of 80 Members elected by STV, to which my noble friend Lord German has recently been appointed, lead me to suspect that it will not go away.

When the Silk commission moves on to Part 2 there will be an opportunity for representations to be made, not on the voting system but on where the responsibility for that may lie. I may want to come back to this issue. It would have been wrong, in this consultation, to have gone into the much wider issues of the size of the Assembly or the voting system. It is intended to address mechanisms because of a situation that has arisen as a result of the two pieces of UK legislation to which I referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am coming on to address that point and I accept that it is important. In terms of taking messages back, I can assure noble Lords that these proceedings will be read, it is fair to say, avidly by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Not only will I report back, but I am sure that they will be read in the Official Report.

[Lord Touhig]

I apologise; the noble and learned Lord is being very generous in giving way. I accept what he says about the Silk commission being excluded from looking at the situation in Wales, but the point of my question was this: was the Silk commission consulted about this Green Paper because it has come out of the blue for all of us?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is my understanding that the commission was not consulted, but that was because what this Green Paper is about is beyond its remit. Questions have been raised about these deliberations, and I am aware of the debate last week in the National Assembly for Wales. The fact—one that has been reflected by a number of contributors to the debate—is that the electoral arrangements of the Assembly are a non-devolved matter. The matter is reserved to this Parliament. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made the point that Wales has two Governments: it has a Government in Wales in the National Assembly and also has a Government here at Westminster. The devolution settlement agreed in the Government of Wales Acts 1998 and 2006, and the distribution of powers that was approved only last year in a referendum, retain the electoral system and arrangements for the Assembly as being matters for the Westminster Parliament.

I accept that those in Plaid Cymru who aspire to much greater powers for the National Assembly for Wales would argue the case that electoral arrangements, and possibly the system, should be devolved—albeit with a two-thirds majority—and clearly that case can be made. The Silk commission does not have within its remit the current electoral arrangements but it does have within its remit the distribution of powers between the Westminster Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I have no doubt that representations to that effect will be made, but that is not the current devolution settlement.

Scotland: Independence

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Touhig]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the First Minister of Wales on the issue of a referendum on Scottish independence.

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

My Lords, first, I am sure that noble Lords from other parts of the United Kingdom will wish to join me in extending to Welsh noble Lords our warmest greetings and best wishes on St David’s Day.

The Government have had no formal discussions with the Welsh Government on the issue of a referendum on Scottish independence.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his St David’s Day greeting; it is most welcome to those of us who spend much of our working lives as missionaries in England.

The future of the United Kingdom is not a matter that can be left to negotiations between Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government alone. Any change in the status of any of the nations of our union must affect us all. The people of Wales—and, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland—are not mere spectators in all this. Wales’s First Minister has proposed holding a constitutional convention so that we can redefine what a modern United Kingdom should look like. What do the Government think about that idea? If such a convention is held, should it not be held before the Scots hold their referendum?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we are faced with the position where the Scottish Government have said that they wish to proceed with a referendum. We have serious doubts as to the legality of that; that is why we have proposed in our consultation document that we should engage with the Scottish Government to see whether we can get an appropriate order to allow such a referendum to take place on a legitimate basis.

However, it has been accepted by successive Administrations that no part of the United Kingdom should be forced to stay within the United Kingdom against its wishes. That is why, first and foremost, the Government wish to ensure that we succeed in winning the referendum for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom; but I wholly accept that any other arrangements for how powers may be distributed within our United Kingdom have implications for all parts of it. Therefore, the more we can discuss it among different parts of the United Kingdom, the better.

Devolution: Wales

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think that the legislative consent Motion, originally described in Scotland as the Sewel convention after the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who announced it, has worked well in practice. It is my understanding that if legislation which has implications for Wales is brought before your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons, it will be the subject of a similar convention. After each Queen’s Speech there is an obligation on the Secretary of State for Wales to consult the National Assembly for Wales about UK government proposals that may have an impact on Wales, not least since the further devolution on devolved matters.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, loath as I am to be in disagreement with my colleague on the Front Bench so far as concerns the Barnett formula, I say to the Minister, “Review the Barnett formula but don’t rush it”.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear the noble Lord and he may wish to make that point in the debate later.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, like many noble Lords I pay tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. For those of us who knew him in the other place, I can honestly say that it was vintage Cormack. When he speaks in future, I am sure we will note that he is a distinguished parliamentarian who is worth listening to because he talks a lot of sense.

It is somewhat ironic that this debate on further changes to our constitution by introducing fixed-term Parliaments is being held on St David’s Day. I was delighted, by the way, to see the Draig Goch flying above Westminster Abbey as I came in this morning for St David’s Day, that great day which we celebrate. It is ironic because this Government have shown a complete lack of regard—indeed, have shown nothing but contempt—for Wales in their constitutional changes put so far before Parliament. We have already seen the gross spectacle of the Government forcing through a blatantly partisan Bill, which will reduce the number of Welsh representatives in the other place by a quarter and will certainly damage the relationship between Wales and the rest of the union. This Bill has been drafted with little or no concern for the impact that it will have on Wales or, for that matter, on Scotland and Northern Ireland.

At the heart of this matter is the Government’s failure to test their proposals by way of pre-legislative scrutiny. We have constantly been told by the Government that they are committed to pre-legislative scrutiny, but we have yet to see the evidence. The Constitution Committee in your Lordships’ House has stated:

“There is strong evidence to suggest that the Government’s proposals have not been properly thought through”.

The committee is certainly right so far as that is concerned. The Government originally proposed a threshold of 55 per cent in order for a dissolution to occur in the other place; that has now been revised after much criticism to a two-thirds majority. Equally, the Government originally proposed to put a binding order for dissolution to occur—an order which would have made the next election be held in May 2015—but that has now been revised or abandoned because such an order would have no effect. These changes demonstrate that the Government simply have not thought through their proposals. It is deeply concerning that the Government are willing to take such a shoddy approach to our constitution.

The Government have equally failed to consider properly the importance of this Bill and how it interrelates with other proposed constitutional changes. They seem obsessed with piecemeal changes to our constitution. For example, it is not at all clear why changing how people vote demands a referendum, but changing when they vote does not require a referendum. None of the detail of the Bill was subjected to proper consultation or proper pre-legislative scrutiny. The Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mr Harper, when challenged on this, informed the Constitution Committee that pre-legislative scrutiny was less important in the first term since,

“if the whole programme was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny … you would not get on and do very much”.

He was serious when he made that statement. Surely when it comes to our constitution, proper pre-legislative scrutiny should always occur—no matter how much of a brake that places upon the Government.

We all know that the Deputy Prime Minister is under a lot of pressure—so much so that he forgot the Prime Minister was abroad last week and had left him in charge of the country. It says something about the arrogant way in which the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister in particular have proceeded with this legislation that the Constitution Committee found it necessary to remind the Government that the proper way to introduce a constitutional reform proposal is to publish a Green Paper or a White Paper or a draft Bill and take into account the comments and concerns raised in the process of consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in the Bill that is finally introduced. The Bill has simply not been properly consulted upon and, as I have said, there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny that is worthy of the name.

The Bill allows for an election to be called in the aftermath of the vote of no confidence and sets out a procedure to be followed after such a vote. The Bill, however, fails to state what constitutes a vote of no confidence. Instead, Clause 2(2) places the onus on the Speaker of the House of Commons to determine whether the requirements for an early election have been met. The Minister, Mr Harper, told the Constitution Committee that the Speaker of the House of Commons would be guided by convention in determining whether the requirements have been met. The conventions, however, are not clear on what constitutes a Motion of no confidence. As such, the Speaker is in effect given a significant amount of responsibility to determine when a Motion amounts to a vote of no confidence—and hence to determine when an election can be called. Such powers for the Speaker are completely unprecedented and risk radically altering the role of the holder of that office.

Conspiracy theorists who might have read the weekend press will have learned that the Government are allegedly plotting a way in which the House of Commons can remove the Speaker. Some people might think that these two things are linked, and that the Government would much prefer a compliant holder of that office in the other place. Let us not forget that it was a Speaker—a previous holder of that office—who told the King of England where to go. The Speaker has a very important role. We do not want to see that role in any way compromised.

As the Constitution Committee noted, the Speaker’s judgment on what amounts to a Motion of no confidence risks placing him in conflict with the Government, and hence with a majority of the House. It is unclear whether Motions of no confidence include defeats on key confidence issues, such as the Queen’s Speech or the Budget, or whether they include cases where the Government lose votes on other matters.

The Government have, without any consultation on the issue and with very limited justification for the position that they have taken, arrived at the decision that the appropriate length for a fixed-term Parliament is five years. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated:

“There is a pattern of five-year Parliaments, at least recently”,

with which people are familiar. However, as my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport has just pointed out, since 1945 Parliaments have sat for an average of three years and 10 months. Of the last three general elections, two were called after around four years and one was called after a full period of five years. Therefore, I contend that there is little support for the Deputy Prime Minister’s assertion that people are used to a pattern of five-year Parliaments. When my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer opened the debate for this side, he reminded us that five-year Parliaments were introduced by the Liberal Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith. However, it is worth remembering that Asquith said at the time that in all probability this would result in an actual working legislative period of around four years. Therefore, when a five-year maximum term was introduced, it was expected that five years would indeed be the maximum and that general elections would occur more frequently than once every five years.

A five-year, as opposed to a four-year, maximum would make elections significantly less frequent than they are at present, which would surely make politicians less accountable to their constituents. Yet we all remember that the Deputy Prime Minister promised an era of “new politics” in which voters would be more, not less, engaged in the democratic process. More important, people want to hold their politicians to account for the actions that they take in power, and we should do nothing to restrict them in exercising that right. That was certainly the view of the Liberal Democrat Party when in 2007 it published documents that favoured a four-year fixed term. One wonders whether the Deputy Prime Minister’s new-found commitment to five-year Parliaments is borne more out of fear of facing the electorate than out of principle.

The Government have not made a particularly compelling case that fixed-term Parliaments are a good thing. Even if allowing Prime Ministers to manipulate the electoral cycle to their own advantage is a bad thing, it is not clear that the Bill will improve that situation very much at all. The Government have argued that fixing each election time will improve the democratic legitimacy of Parliament, yet in reality there are a number of circumstances in which it is more, rather than less, democratic to hold an early election. First, there may have been a change of Prime Minister within the life of a Parliament, and many have argued that that should precipitate a general election. The present Prime Minister was a great fan of that until the 2010 election. Indeed, he constantly called for a general election when there was a change of Prime Minister. He now seems to have had a change of heart. Equally, where a Government change in the course of a Parliament, it would seem logical for there to be an election. If the present coalition were to fall apart and a new coalition formed, would it not be right to test in a general election whether that coalition Government had the support of the British people? Of course it would be right.

The Bill leaves many questions unanswered. We in this House must therefore give it the closest possible scrutiny in the coming weeks and months.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, briefly, my Amendment 5B would leave out subsection (2) and prevent the AV referendum being held on the same day as the Welsh Assembly elections. As in other parts of the country, the people of Wales will face voter fatigue. On 3 March, as my noble friend Lord Howarth has mentioned, we have the referendum on more powers for the Welsh Assembly. That is very important; it could change the way in which the Assembly works in its relationship to the Government and Parliament and might have long-term implications for our constitution. On 5 May, we have the elections for the Welsh Assembly, and now the Government want to hold the AV referendum on that date as well.

It is with a heavy heart that I say to the Government that throughout this debate they have shown nothing but contempt for Wales and its people. Wales is to lose one-quarter of its parliamentary constituencies. Twenty per cent of the whole reduction in the number of parliamentary constituencies throughout Britain is expected to come from Wales. However, despite our debate on Wales, which some noble Lords said was the best debate we had in the House throughout this Bill, the Government were not prepared to move. I say to the noble Lords on the government Benches that Wales is not a colony run by governors-general. We are used, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to Conservative Secretaries of State who do not represent Welsh seats sitting in London in government, but Wales is not a colony. We are part of the United Kingdom and a nation in our own right. We deserve to be treated better than this.

The Government have so far been unwilling to move. If they are not prepared to move on this matter, households in Wales will, over the next few months, face a deluge of material through their letter boxes—material saying yea or nay to more powers for the Welsh Assembly, material for the Assembly elections from all the parties and material saying yea or nay to AV. Our National Assembly is still young and still growing. It still has a long way to go to win the hearts and minds of the people of Wales and establish itself in the way that its Members would wish. However, its role may change even further after the referendum on 3 March. We should give the Welsh Assembly election the dignity and status it deserves. It should be held alone, without any other election that day.

What really annoys me about this whole issue is that the Conservatives do not support AV; the Prime Minister says that he will campaign against it. The Liberal Democrats do not support AV; their leader has described it as a “miserable little compromise”. Yet such is the Government’s opinion of Wales that they are prepared to treat its people in this most disrespectful manner and push through holding a referendum on AV on the same day as the election for the Welsh Assembly. I say to the noble Lords on the other side only that if they persist in this way, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will pay a heavy price come the next election—and they will certainly deserve to.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, that is almost a reason not to support the amendment to which my noble friend Lord Touhig has spoken. I will say just a few words in support of Amendment 5D in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McAvoy. As my noble friend Lord Howarth said, the Scottish Parliament, by a substantial vote of 90 to 30, called on this Parliament and the Government not to hold the referendum on the same day as the elections to the Scottish Parliament. The Prime Minister Mr Cameron, when he was elected, spoke about an agenda of respect—of mutual respect—for the Scottish Parliament. However, one of the first things that the Government did was to ignore the views of the elected Scottish Parliament—the people who know best because they are there on the ground and will campaign in the election. That is one strong argument in favour of the amendment.

The second is that there will be two confusing campaigns. In a previous debate, when I indicated my total support for the sane and sensible remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, even Members of this House drew a sharp intake of breath at that unusual alliance. That alliance will be there again—campaigning in Scotland against AV, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I are both against. However, we will be campaigning on opposite sides in the Scottish parliamentary election, and that will cause confusion. I use the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as just one example. There will be many such people. Indeed, I previously said that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—whom I remember saying he was against AV early in the debate—and I could be tramping the streets of Mauchline together on the same side in the referendum but on entirely different sides in the campaign for the Scottish Parliament. That will cause confusion. The posters will be confusing, as will the campaign with loudspeakers. I am not allowed to repeat arguments but, as I said previously, the two campaigns will cause confusion.

My last point is about the franchises. I have made the point before but will make it in a different form now because the Ministers have still not addressed it. There will be difficulty in dealing with two substantially different franchises when in Scotland, as my noble friends know, many Polish, German and French people will be entitled and able to vote in the Scottish Parliament election but not in the AV referendum. It will cause great confusion, which would not arise if the polls were not held on the same day. Respect for the views of the Scottish Parliament and the confusion caused by two campaigns and two franchises are very powerful arguments that should make the Government think again.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Touhig]

89BA: Clause 11, page 11, line 26, at end insert—
“(5) If the number of constituencies allocated to Wales under sub-paragraph (3) is fewer than 35, an additional allocation shall be made to Wales to ensure that it has 35 constituencies.
(6) Where an additional allocation is made under sub-paragraph (5) above, sub-paragraph (7) shall apply in place of rule 2.
(7) The electorate of any constituency in Wales shall be—
(a) no less than 95% of the Welsh electoral quota; and(b) no more than 105% of that quota;the “Wales electoral quota” meaning W/P, where W is the electorate of Wales and P is the number of constituencies allocated to Wales.”

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I am pleased to be opening this debate on Wales so that we can air some issues that concern many of us. But at the same time I am saddened because none of these amendments was debated in the other place because of the use of a guillotine, which shows the importance of the scrutiny that your Lordships’ House is able to afford at this time.

Wales, more than any other part of the United Kingdom, will be adversely affected as a result of this Bill. Wales has just 5 per cent of the United Kingdom’s population but in this Bill Wales will lose 10 parliamentary constituencies. That equates to 20 per cent of the total reduction in the number of constituencies the Government are seeking across the whole United Kingdom. The Bill will see the number of MPs Wales sends to the Parliament of the United Kingdom reduced by one in four. That is 25 per cent compared with around 7 per cent for the rest of the country. That means fewer MPs than after the great reforms of 1832 when the population of Wales could be counted in thousands.

We are a small nation within a large country but our contribution to our democratic parliamentary life has been far greater than many would think possible for a country of around 3 million people. Sons of Wales at one time or another have dominated the British political scene. David Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan are but two. Our adopted sons James Callaghan and Michael Foot rose to great offices of state and came to lead their party. From the Conservative Benches the noble Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, changed the course of British politics when he resigned from Mrs Thatcher’s Government. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, became leader of his party. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, the longest-serving Welsh Office Minister who was in office for half the time the Welsh Office actually existed, was responsible for steering through the Welsh Language Act which gave Welsh equal status with English for the first time. And I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who served as a distinguished Secretary of State, is also with us this afternoon.

More than 700 years ago, with a population that counted in thousands, 24 Welsh MPs were summoned to Parliament. In those seven centuries, as the population has grown to 3 million, that number has increased to just 40. Parliament in its wisdom passed the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 and in Schedule 2 it states:

“The number of constituencies in Wales shall not be less than 35”.

That, I would argue, gives a valid and sound basis for the amendment we have before us. It was based on the unanimous conclusions of the 1944 Speaker’s Conference and that 1986 Act went through Parliament without a Division. In fact, it was supported by all parties. If anything could be said to have support on all sides of the political spectrum it was that Act. Contrast that with the present Bill which was not the subject of a Green Paper, a White Paper or any pre-legislative scrutiny and certainly cannot be said to have widespread parliamentary support. I further believe that, by guaranteeing that Wales should have a minimum of 35 Members of Parliament, recognition was given to the need to make special provision for the small nations in our United Kingdom. With only 5 per cent of the UK population, Wales needs this sort of provision if we are to play our full role in the multinational British state.

Many people fear that reducing Welsh representation in the other place by 25 per cent when many aspects of Welsh life, including the ability of the Welsh Assembly to do its job, depend on the Government and Parliament in Westminster, would fuel a further interest in separatism. I raised the matter at Second Reading when I warned that this could be a threat to our union. When the people of Wales voted by a very small margin in 1997 for devolution and the creation of a Welsh Assembly, it was on the clear understanding that this would have no effect on Welsh representation in the British Parliament. I can, albeit reluctantly, accept that that now could be interpreted in terms of the minimum 35 seats in the UK Parliament, which this amendment seeks to achieve. Based on the many comments that I have received from noble Lords on all sides, I cannot accept that the protection afforded to Wales of a minimum of 35 seats should be removed.

Even after the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, huge areas of Welsh life continue to be determined by decisions of the Government and Parliament in Westminster: everything from pensions, benefits, criminal justice and policing, taxation, levels of public expenditure, macroeconomic policy, and defence and foreign policy, will remain the responsibility of the Government and Parliament in Westminster. This will continue to be the case even if the people of Wales vote in the referendum in March to devolve further powers to the Welsh Assembly.

The situation in the United Kingdom, with devolved Administrations in the various nations, is not uncommon around the world. It is common for countries which have a mixture of central and devolved government to exercise positive discrimination in their constitutions to safeguard the smaller, devolved areas. In that way, the strength of the union is made secure. In the United States, California, with 37 million people, sends two senators to Washington—as does Wyoming, with a population of 544,000. Again, it is important for their union. The smallest state in Germany, Bremen, with a population of 220,000, sends three members to the German Bundesrat, while the largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia, with a population of 3 million, sends six. Again, it is important for their union that the smaller regions and nations are protected. Nor should we forget who helped the Germans to devise their constitution after the last war. Representation in the Spanish senate is weighted towards the smaller regions. That also happens in Australia. This is all done because of the need for a strong, central, good union.

Noble Lords on the Conservative Benches should wake up to the threat to our union posed by a 25 per cent reduction in the number of Members of Parliament that Wales sends here. The Conservative Party rightly and for a long time prided itself on being called the Conservative and Unionist Party. Regardless of our political differences—they will always remain, which is good and healthy for our democracy—we should make common cause to defend our union. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the heirs to Lloyd George, know in their hearts that it is not right to remove 25 per cent of Welsh Members from the House of Commons, with Wales bearing 20 per cent of the total reduction in the number of MPs for the whole United Kingdom. A week ago last Monday was the anniversary of the birth of Lloyd George. He loved Wales, her people and her language, and he would never have done anything to diminish her role in the United Kingdom.

The Government have made a case for special treatment for two parliamentary seats in Scotland, which will not be required to meet their ambition for seats of equal size. Your Lordships' House has done the same for the Isle of Wight. Why, therefore, will the Government not consider that there is a case for special consideration for Wales? The Bill proposes that Wales should lose the largest number of MPs in percentage terms of any part of the United Kingdom: 20 per cent of the reduction for the entire country will come from Wales. In the interests of fairness, that cannot be right.

There is another important aspect of Wales that merits special consideration: the Welsh language. In five parliamentary constituencies—Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Ceredigion and Carmarthen East and Dinefwr—Welsh is the first language of a majority of voters. Mr Lewis Baston, a senior research fellow with Democratic Audit, has been much quoted in the debates that we have had in the House in recent days. In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place, he criticised the impact that a reduction of 10 seats would have on Welsh-speaking areas. He said:

“The Bill risks severely depleting the representation of Welsh-speaking areas in the UK Parliament”.

Wales is the only part of the United Kingdom where some 20 per cent of the population speak two languages, Welsh and English. Surely that merits special consideration. If special consideration can be given to preserving two parliamentary constituencies in Scotland because of geographical, historical and community factors, surely Wales can be given special consideration. The same historical and community factors exist in Wales, on top of which there is the unique factor of the Welsh language, which is the first language for a majority of people in five parliamentary constituencies. Have the Government given any consideration to the fact that Wales is the only part of the United Kingdom where a second language is spoken by 20 per cent of the population? What thought has been given to ensuring that the sparsely populated areas of Wales are properly represented in Parliament?

We had a very good debate the other evening about Brecon and Radnor. As many noble Lords will know, this constituency in eastern Wales runs along the border with England. The northernmost tip of that constituency is closer to the north Wales coast than it is to the southernmost tip of the constituency, and the southernmost tip of the constituency is closer to the south Wales coast than it is to the northernmost tip of the constituency. It is a huge area. It is conceivable, if the Bill is not altered, that there could be just two Members of Parliament representing an area from the Welsh/English border in the east to Cardigan Bay in the west: two Members from the Heads of the Valley Road in the south to the borders of Wrexham and the A55 in the north. At a stroke, the long-established community links between MPs and constituents would be lost. Rural MPs in Wales would have to travel great distances to see their constituents, and they would have to travel great distances to see them.

I remind the House of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, in our debate the other evening. He said:

“This piece of legislation says that you should look at representation from the viewpoint of the Member of Parliament and the number of constituents that he has. No, my Lords: you should look at it from the other end of the telescope—from the end of the ordinary constituent, who asks himself, ‘How accessible is my Member of Parliament to me?’. If you ask that question, you are likely to get a more reasonable and just result”.—[Official Report, 24/1/11; col. 800.]

I endorse what the noble Lord said.

I will take a step further the argument for the need to preserve community-based representation in Parliament. Has any consideration been given to sustaining the distinctive community-based representation of the south Wales valleys? The noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, made powerful arguments the other evening in favour of sustaining the close link between an MP and his constituents when they admirably put the case for the Isle of Wight. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said:

“This is not just a numbers game. If we end up making it a numbers game, we may very well find that respect, support and influence that Parliament is able to bring to bear through its Members in their constituencies are greatly diminished at a time when we need to strengthen Parliament”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. 413.]

We face the loss of community-based representation across the Welsh valleys. I mentioned this at Second Reading and again in the debate the other evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think that the noble Lord congratulated us on that at the time.

The point I am trying to make is that the two Scottish highland constituencies to which I referred are substantially greater than Brecon and Radnorshire—in the case of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, almost three times as big; in the case of Ross, Skye and Lochaber, more than four times as big. We would have to go a very long way before we got anywhere near constituencies of that size, which have equally challenging geographical issues. Nevertheless, Members of Parliament have successfully represented those constituencies, as can be seen by the fact that they have been returned regularly in elections.

I take on the genuine issue, which several noble Lords have mentioned, of the effect of the interaction with the Union. I express myself as a passionate advocate of the benefits of the United Kingdom, while at the same time as someone who has vociferously argued for devolution. I recognise the sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, raised his concern about the Union.

My point, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, picked me up, is not unreasonable. I think that there is an issue of fairness, and I have not yet heard the argument why it is in some way unfair that a vote in Cardiff should have the same value as a vote in Belfast, London and Edinburgh. Indeed, those who argue the contrary must tell us what explanation we give to a voter in Edinburgh that a vote in Cardiff should be worth more. I have not yet heard that explanation. Neither do I believe that in some way that difference in value will cement Wales’s place in the Union. In fact, I think there is some merit in saying that if all parts of the Union are treated equally, that is positive. I would have hesitated to say it, because I am not Welsh, but my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made the point that the Welsh nation can have true confidence in itself. It does not need overrepresentation in order to have confidence in itself. That is worth bearing in mind.

I come on to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, when he asked about various points I had made in the past about devolution. Points have been raised about the Speaker’s Conference. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, much has happened since the 1944 Speaker’s Conference, and much has happened since the remarks attributed to my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke in 1992. We cannot hypothetically say, “What would happen to this Bill if we had the Wales Office and had never had devolution?”. That is not the situation today. It is the case that on the back of devolution, Scotland reduced its representation from 72 to 59, but devolution is not relevant to the proposals that the Government are putting forward because we are not seeking to make a distinction between Scotland, which has a different form of devolution from Wales, Wales, which may have more powers following the referendum on 3 March, Northern Ireland, which has a different system of devolution again, and England, which has no devolved government.

Noble Lords made the point that the United Kingdom Parliament deals with macroeconomic policies, defence—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke of the contribution that the constituent parts of the United Kingdom make to the Armed Forces—social security matters and pensions matters. The Government are saying that representation should be fair in all parts of the United Kingdom. There may be some who would argue that because Scotland has its Parliament dealing with a range of domestic issues, there could even be an argument for underrepresentation, but that is not the position of the Government. The Government believe that there should be equal representation in all parts of the United Kingdom, and that is what underlies this. We do not find it particularly acceptable that, for example, the constituency of Arfon, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, has an electorate of just over 40,000 whereas Falkirk has an electorate of 80,000. Indeed, it was pointed out that even within Wales, there are substantial divergences in the number of electors.

I shall pick up the point on the Welsh language. I cannot see why the reduction in the number of Members from Wales would have an impact on the Welsh language. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, some of the great steps forward for the Welsh language were taken by people who were not Welsh-speaking in response to those who made very good, cogent arguments for the Welsh language over many years. It is the case that many Members of Parliament in our inner cities are dealing with constituencies in which a variety of languages are used by people from minority ethnic communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made an important and valuable contribution when he referred to his manuscript amendment and there will be an opportunity to debate it more fully when—when—we come to Clause 18. The amendment would, as I understand it, mean that the first boundary review would take place as though the new rules were in force; the existing legislation would remain in force in the mean time; the new boundary provisions would be commenced only once the Boundary Commissions had reported; and votes in both Houses on the commencement order would be at that point. The House would effectively have the choice of commencing the new rules or retaining the 1986 Act rules. I recognise the intention behind this amendment, which was briefly spoken to by the noble Lord, and I salute the helpful spirit in which it was proposed. We will clearly want to give thought to the issues that it raises, but I will put down a caveat in that it invites Parliament to do what it does not usually do. Parliament usually sets the rules for the Boundary Commission and does not give people who have more than a vested interest in them the opportunity to decide whether they should introduce new boundaries that have a direct effect on them. Having said that, it is an innovative suggestion that I would be very happy to discuss with the noble Lord. I hope we will be able to have that discussion soon before we debate his amendment in due course.

In conclusion, I repeat that the provisions in this Bill will mean a reduction in the number of Welsh constituencies, just as in the rest of the United Kingdom. In opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, pointed out that Wales has 5 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom. On the 2009 figures, the overall proportion of Welsh seats in Westminster would go from 6 per cent to 5 per cent. I do not believe that that poses a threat to the Union. If anything, I believe that greater fairness and equality can help strengthen our union, and I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, we have had a first-class debate. Seventeen of your Lordships have taken part. We have had a debate in the unelected House of our Parliament that the Government denied the elected House. In responding, the Minister took an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who mentioned the late Lord Livsey. I, too, knew, admired and respected Richard Livsey, and if he were here tonight, I have no doubt about which side of the argument he would be on. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not follow the normal courtesy and respond to all the contributions that were made because I do not think that I could match the eloquence and power of the argument. We have spent just over three hours on this debate, and I am not here unnecessarily to take up your Lordships’ time.

Those who have spoken in this debate and I have sought to improve this Bill in the interests of the people of Wales. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. We have clearly failed to impress upon the Government our concerns about the adverse impact this Bill will have on Wales. I believe that we have approached the debate in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. We have expressed our view and our concerns about the implications of this Bill on Wales. We have not been prescriptive and said, “Here’s a problem; here’s an answer; you must take it”. Noble Lords who have signed the amendments in this group have put their names to not one but three possible alternatives which the Government might have considered and reflected upon and come back at a later stage with some proposal that might have assuaged our fears. I believe it is in the best traditions of your Lordships' House to give the democratically elected Government time to reflect on the arguments that have been put. We offered an olive branch, but I fear that that olive branch has been tossed away. I worry because those of us who feel passionately about Wales and about the Union of the United Kingdom intend to continue to make this argument and this debate. The other place did not have an opportunity to debate these amendments or to express a view. It is with a heavy heart that I feel it is necessary to divide your Lordships' House so that we may express an opinion on Amendment 89BA.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

As with many other such endeavours, the issue cannot be reduced to a simple mathematical equation when you are dealing with people and their sense of place and community, and when geographical barriers and idiosyncratic issues of history and geography are involved. I shall reserve my other arguments for later when further amendments come forward. I support the amendment.

[Lord Touhig]

I do not intend detaining your Lordships very long but I should like to refer to the impact that the legislation is having on Wales. As a Welsh Member of your Lordships’ House I feel strongly about this because not one amendment about Wales was debated in the other place. The use of the guillotine ensured that none was debated and yet Wales is the part of the United Kingdom that is most adversely affected by the Bill.

Paul Wood, a member of the Boundary Commission for Wales, in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee in the other place, produced a report on the Bill and said that,

“issues such as local ties and historical ties, which may have had more weight previously, are clearly subsumed in the legislation to the numerical issues”.

In other words, community-based representation will fail and disappear if the Bill is not amended. Indeed, the creation of large, rigidly defined constituencies based on numbers will put an end to it.

I think of my part of Wales, and the south Wales valleys in particular, as being like a hand: the valleys are the fingers and the palms are the cities of Newport, Cardiff and Swansea. There is movement from the valleys to the cities, but there is hardly any movement across valleys from one valley to another. That is historical and something that we have understood for many decades.

Perhaps I can relate my concerns on how Bill will impact on my former constituency of Islwyn. The Electoral Reform Society has produced a paper in which it has redrawn the electoral map of Wales based on 30 parliamentary seats. In its proposals my former parliamentary constituency of Islwyn would disappear, which would have certain consequences. Under the Electoral Reform Society’s proposals, which could be a blueprint for whichever body follows, the community of Abercarn will be put into the new constituency of Caerphilly. Abercarn is in the Ebbw valley and Caerphilly is in the Rhymney valley, separated by two mountain chains and three rivers. They are distinct and separate and there is no community interest across the valleys. It is proposed that the community of Cefn Fforest will become part of the new constituency of Merthyr Tydfil. They are in separate counties and there is no community of interest whatever between the two.

[Lord Grocott]

I assume that the Electoral Reform Society’s map was applied to the whole country, as we had the same in Shropshire. Was there anyone at any level of representation in the noble Lord’s part of Wales, such as a local authority, who thought that the proposals made any sense whatever? No elected representative or official in Shropshire thought there was any sense at all in what the Electoral Reform Society proposed.

[Lord Touhig]

I am more likely to find someone recruiting for the band of hope in hell than to find anyone in my part of Wales who supported it. It will not happen, frankly.

The point that I am trying to get across is that there is not the community of interest that has to exist if we are to have huge constituencies based on numbers. If the Bill is enacted as it stands we will not need to employ the Boundary Commission to do this work. Anybody with a map, a pencil and an abacus will be able to draw up the new parliamentary boundaries. We might as well hand it over to the Flat Earth Society for all the good it will do for locally based parliamentary representation.

This is so important and fundamental, and it is a matter that I will return to perhaps at greater length when we debate the amendments affecting Wales that are in my name and those of other noble Lords. It is important to recognise that there are particular difficulties, especially across the south Wales valleys where simply having constituencies based on numbers will not work in terms of the community of interest. There will be no link whatever between the Member of Parliament and the constituent. That will be a retrograde step, so I hope that with those few remarks the Minister will get the impression of how strongly I feel, as do many people in Wales. I know how people on all sides, including Cross-Benchers, feel about this. Wales will be adversely affected in that 20 per cent of all the reductions in the number of parliamentary seats in Britain will be in Wales. It will lose one in four of its parliamentary seats as the Bill stands. That cannot be right and I will return to that debate later.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

The last thing I want to do is extend the debate but somebody needs to say that the picture of idealised perfection that the Boundary Commission arrangements have had up until now, implicitly presented by some of the things that have been said, is simply not the case, especially in an area of rapidly expanding populations.

I happen to have been a Member of Parliament a lot longer ago, admittedly, in the county of Essex which has had a rapidly expanding population and went through several boundary changes. I am bound to say that the constituency I represented included parts of two districts, Chelmsford and Braintree; it would have included parts of two PCTs, had they existed at the time; it related to two police divisions, to quote examples used earlier; and indeed, it had three different postal districts in its geography. I found not the slightest difficulty in representing all those parts and strands to the best of my ability. My former constituents might have views on whether I did it well or badly overall, but I found no difficulty at all in relating to both Chelmsford and Braintree councils and all the other bodies to which I referred. I do not think that we should have it presented, as some have, that the situation is a dreamworld without the Bill.

My other point is that the constituency that I represented has now been split into two and the two main towns within it are separate. Frankly, I think they probably like it as they were about the same size and there was a degree of rivalry so they are happy to be split up, even though they are still in the same local government district. One of them is now part of the constituency consisting of parts of three districts: Braintree, Colchester and Maldon. I do not believe that the new MP is having any difficulty representing all those parts of her new constituency. Let us not overplay our hand on this and recognise that there will be difficulties whatever system we have. There is a degree of flexibility in the Bill’s proposals. Last week there were discussions about increasing that degree of flexibility. There is already enough flexibility to make it quite possible not to have the abacus concept that the noble Lord talked about just now.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Selsdon]

I was not suggesting anything about other islands. This debate is about the Isle of Wight.

The thing about an island community is that, when you connect it to a mainland politically, you create divisions. Even within an island, when you split it—as in Cyprus or any of the other islands in the world—you create divisions. You need a united community, which can be united only if it has the sea around it. Therefore, I support the amendment.

I also feel that there is something quite remarkable about what my noble friend Lord Mackay has done. He has taken the heat out of the debate. We are all debating on the same side. Yes, noble Lords opposite will want to protect certain constituencies and claim that they are all of one ethnic group or different ethnic groups, but communities are communities. Island communities are—I promise you—individual communities. I therefore support the amendment. I encourage the noble Lord who moved it to press it to a Division and I will vote, because it is about time that we had a vote on something worth voting on.

[Lord Touhig]

If the Government concede on this amendment, of course it could be said that they are setting a precedent. That does not bother me. I rather think that, when the first human being stood up on his hind legs instead of crawling around on all fours, people tut-tutted and said that that was setting a precedent. The argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is important because it goes to the heart of the Bill. As we discussed to some extent at Second Reading, our representation in Parliament should be community based. If ever there were a case for that, it is that of the Isle of Wight.

The fact that the Isle of Wight is an island is down to the handiwork of the creator and we cannot do much about it, but we can inject some common sense into the Bill and say to the Government that this makes sense. Parts of the Isle of Wight should not be joined to a constituency on the mainland. We could argue the same case, I am sure, for Ynys Môn—there will be other examples I have no doubt—but this makes sense and I hope that the Committee will support it.

[Lord Bach]

I say from the Front Bench that my party's view is clear that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, should be supported. The Isle of Wight seems evident to us to be a prime candidate for exemption. It meets the island criteria of the other two preserved constituencies. It has a historic basis to its case for being looked at somewhat differently.

Many noble Lords will have received a letter from the Isle of Wight Council, to which I pay tribute for the way in which it has run its campaign. The letter informs us that there has not been a cross-Solent seat, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said in moving his amendment, since 1832—a date that regularly appears in our debates on this Bill—and successive boundary reviews have very strongly rejected any such consideration. We are in favour of his amendment.

The debate has been of interest beyond the Isle of Wight, because of the two different strands of opinion on whether the Bill is too rigid. The Forsyth/Pannick strand—I do not mean “panic”, but that shows what happens when you break the rules and do not say the “noble Lord, Lord Forsyth”, and “the noble Lord, Lord Pannick”—argues that the Bill is much too rigid in terms of constituencies and begins to lose common sense as a result. Then there is the purist view—although I did not think I would ever say that about the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—that says that, if the Government mean what they say about numbers being everything, they had better keep to their word. I know which side of that argument I am on.

As the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to press his amendment to a vote. Whether he does so is entirely a matter for him. I never thought that I would be in a position to advise the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, with his vast experience, but he should beware of being offered something in the next few minutes by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who I am sure will make such an offer with huge skill. The Minister will mean every word that he says, but the noble Lord should beware. If he decides to pay a visit to the ministry in order to hear what the Government have to say in the way of compromise, he should know that he has us at his back, as it were. He has our word that if he does not get what he wants we will support him in the Lobbies.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maples]

That is not correct. The boundary commissions legislation states the number of seats in Scotland and Wales. In fact, the legislation says that there will be a minimum of 35 seats for Wales, whereas there are actually 40, and it also gives minimum numbers for Northern Ireland and Scotland. Therefore, I do not think that it is right to say that the matter has been left entirely to the boundary commissions.

I revert to my point that there has been an escalation in the Boundary Commission process. With 600 seats, there would be about 75,000 voters per Member of Parliament. I have tabled an amendment—Amendment 63ZA—that suggests that the House should be reduced in size progressively over the next three boundary reviews to 600 MPs at the next election, 550 at the one after that and 500 at the one after that. If the number got to 500, there would be 90,000 electors per Member of Parliament. I had very nearly 90,000 electors when I was a Member of Parliament and it was not an unmanageable constituency at all. For those with very small constituencies—mostly in Scotland and Wales—frankly I wonder how theirs can be a full-time job, because it was perfectly easy for me to handle an electorate of about 85,000. It is a matter of the number of staff—a point that I shall come to in a minute.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords—

[Lord Maples]

I should like to progress. This is like making a speech in the House of Commons, where people intervene the whole time. The noble Lord can make his own speech in his own time about the number of seats in Wales. Following on from my Amendment 63ZA, I have tabled another—Amendment 66B—which would reduce the denominator and the fraction for deciding the electorate for each seat.

There are several reasons for making such a change. First, we are moving towards a general feeling that the Government should be smaller. I think that the number of Ministers has got too high. Certainly, if the size of the House of Commons were to be reduced, the number of Ministers in it would also have to decrease. Secondly, there is a wide perception—this is based only on anecdotal evidence—that there are too many politicians who cost too much money. I agree that the cost of the House of Commons will not necessarily fall a lot as a result of the proposed change, but the cost has doubled in the past 13 years. The cost doubled under Labour largely because we were all given an enormously increased number of staff. That has to come to an end. Members of the House of Commons are not the most popular people in the country. If people knew that MPs were costing more, they would not be happy about it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that we should not be too swayed by international comparisons, and I rather agree that we should make up our own minds. He then said that one should take account of other countries’ devolved layers of government—for example, Germany is a federal state and France, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, has elected representatives at all sorts of other levels. If that is so, that is an argument for the quota for Wales and Scotland being lower than for England because England does not have a devolved Assembly. To many of us, it seems that the numerical advantage was taken away from Scotland by the devolution Act. If that argument is to hold sway, it should result in fewer Members of Parliament at Westminster for Wales and Scotland on a quota basis than for England. However, politicians in other countries find themselves perfectly capable of dealing with constituencies that are much larger than 75,000 voters. I think that constituencies in Germany have about 140,000 voters and those in France about 100,000 voters, whereas here, even under my proposal for reducing the House of Commons to 500 Members, the figure would be 90,000.

Let us look at some of the changes that have taken place and the work that is required of Members of Parliament. The devolved Assemblies have, frankly, reduced the workload of the Members of Parliament for those areas for which there are devolved Assemblies, because the work is now split between more people. It may be that Parkinson’s law is in operation and that demand is rising to meet supply, but, in objective terms, there are more elected representatives theoretically doing the same work.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred to the increase in constituency work, which is undoubtedly true, but an awful lot of that can be, and is, dealt with by Members’ staff. In most of the run-of-the-mill cases with which Members of Parliament have to deal—which they should not have to sort out, as the bureaucracy should be more responsive than it needing a letter from a Member of Parliament to break some bureaucratic impasse—all that they need to do is sign the letter. They do not have to involve themselves in the details of every case.

We have moved to a House of Commons in which the vast majority of its Members are now professional politicians—it is a full-time job for MPs, who do not do anything else—but the Chamber has become less relevant in holding the Government to account. I suppose that the Chamber is where politicians make their reputation, but, apart from that, the game is so heavily skewed in the Government’s favour that the Chamber is not really where the Government are held to account; that is in Select Committees.

If the House of Commons is to develop, as I hope, in a way that makes it as constitutionally important in the future as it has been in the past, it will be through the work of Select Committees. We do not need a 600 or 650-Member House to staff those. It is my experience from the past 13 years that an enormous number of Members of Parliament, particularly those with marginal seats, have been encouraged to spend less time at Westminster and more in their constituencies. That is another area in which work has expanded to fill the time available in which to do it.

What do you need in the House of Commons? Well, you need a Government. At present, there are 95 Members of the House of Commons in the Government. If the House of Commons were reduced in size along the lines that I suggest, that number should be reduced. However, let us say that you would still need 85 Members in the Government. You would need a similar number in the Opposition to shadow them. You would need some alternatives in both the Opposition and the Government, so that when people either want to resign or have resignation forced upon them, there would be somebody else to take their place. There will be new people at each election. If you add all that up, you come to about 300 people.

Then you need Select Committees, of which there are 17 at the moment. I do not think that 12 or 14 Members are needed on a Select Committee; I have sat on committees of various sizes and would have thought that 10 is about right. Some of the people who sit on Select Committees would also be in one of the other categories in the House of Commons. Opposition spokesmen do not sit on Select Committees, nor do Ministers, but people in the other place who hope to become opposition spokesmen or Ministers are very often on Select Committees—only about 150 people are precluded from being on them.

I would have thought, therefore, that a House of Commons of 500 would be more than enough to satisfy those requirements. That is too big a reduction for one Parliament—it may be too big a reduction for three—but I would be grateful if my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench could respond. Particularly in light of how painful and time-consuming it has been to get this reduction through, perhaps it would be a good idea to build in future reductions as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

On the first question, if you look at the history of the development of the House of Commons, it has never been based on broad principles. I remind the noble Lord that in 1707 there were 513 Members of Parliament for England and Wales and that, as a result of the Act of Union, 45 were added—a figure plucked out of the air with a huge overrepresentation for Scotland in relation to its population in 1707. No principle, just practice. With Pitt’s Act of Union—disastrous, in my view, but I shall not debate that—which abolished Grattan’s Parliament in 1800, 100 Members were added; a huge overrepresentation for the population of Ireland at that time. That overrepresentation was never effectively reduced. In 1922, Northern Ireland received 12 Members, but they did not take away the 88 extra, but only 55.

So there is no principle; it is a matter of pragmatic sense. I agree entirely with what the former Speaker of the House of Commons said. It is a matter for decision, a political decision at the end of the day. My decision is for a smaller House. I respect the views of Members opposite, but I do not think that we would, in any way, impair the workings of democracy in our country by having a smaller House of Commons.

[Lord Touhig]

This is the ninth day of the debate and a pattern is developing. We have a Minister who will speak on behalf of the Government and usually, if we are lucky, one Back-Bencher who will speak on behalf of all the rest. Indeed, until the noble Lord, Lord Baker, decided to leave his computer and enhance our democracy by coming to the Chamber and taking part, we had only the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Maples, who made a superb contribution. I may not have agreed with many things that he said, but it was certainly a contribution that was not only worthy of him, but worthy of the other side and worthy of the House. It is important that we engage in a proper discourse on this important matter.

[Lord Tyler]

If the noble Lord does not take too long, I will, I hope, be able to make my usual very terse, succinct and very relevant contribution to this debate. Therefore I am relying on him not to be too lengthy.

[Lord Touhig]

I am overwhelmed by the noble Lord’s modesty and I shall try to reciprocate by keeping my remarks as brief as possible.

I will chide the noble Lord, Lord Maples, in one way—he displayed an extraordinary ignorance of post-devolution Wales in terms of the work of Members of Parliament. I am sure that he did a fantastic job as a Member of Parliament representing 90,000 people. I did not represent that number, but I can tell him that my workload was no less. Like many who sat in the House of Commons, I worked 70 or 80 hours a week and there was very often a huge amount of sudden extra work. When the miners were successful in winning their case for compensation for diseases acquired working underground, I had 500 constituency cases out of the blue that had built up over a period.

The work of a Member of Parliament is not being taken into account in terms of the way that the Bill has been constructed. We heard some discussions earlier today about pre-legislative scrutiny. If the Government had engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny, they might have had a better understanding of the workload of Members of Parliament. When I entered the other place in a by-election in 1995, I was told that there was one Member of Parliament who never replied to any letters from his constituents. It was perfectly logical—he said that only a minority wrote to him and it was grossly unfair to the majority, who never troubled him, to write back to those who did.

That might have been the case then, but it certainly is not the case at the present time. Members of Parliament have huge constituency workloads as well as a huge amount of work in the House as well. Because of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, I fear that the Bill does not take account of that. I do not know whether any noble Lords on the Government Benches have done any pre-legislative scrutiny, but when I was Wales Minister I often came to your Lordships’ House with a draft Bill to discuss with your Lordships. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, from the Cross Benches, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, a former Welsh Secretary, always made important contributions to help us improve the quality of legislation. That is what pre-legislative scrutiny allowed us to do and it is sadly lacking in this legislation.

At the end of last week there was a brief debate on a Question from the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, about the conventions in this House. I think it is right, from time to time, to remind ourselves that there are proper ways to behave and to discuss and debate in this House and I have no complaints about the points that he raised. What greater convention can there be than the role of this House to defend and safeguard the constitution? That must, surely, be the most important of conventions and must be what we ought to do. I refer noble Lords to the Companion, where it says:

“The House of Lords is the second Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament”.

That is a bit of news, perhaps, to one or two Members on the other side. The Companion continues:

“As a constituent part of Parliament, the House of Lords makes laws, holds government to account, and debates issues of public interest”.

That is why we are giving the Bill the kind of scrutiny that we are. This is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is not Zimbabwe, and we do not need a Government who act like Robert Mugabe in pushing through legislation on which there has been no consultation and for which there was no widespread support across the country before it was put to Parliament.

The Bill will mean that almost boundary of every constituency in the United Kingdom will be withdrawn, and is a triumph of arithmetic over accountable democracy. Those who say that the only way to have a proper and fair electoral system is to have equal-sized constituencies are missing the point. Why is that the only argument? There are all sorts of others. We will go into the issues relating to Wales later, but the Government have already accepted that there should be exceptions to that with Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles. I will make a case later on—I do not know at what hour—about consideration for Wales.

The fundamental point that has been missed but that is coming out from a number of speakers in this debate is that, because of a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, no proper account has been taken of the workload of Members of Parliament. I am not against reducing the number of Members of Parliament if that is appropriate. That is proper and fair. It is right that we should take stock and judge from time to time whether the numbers are right. Without any proper consultation and discussion, the figure of 600 is flawed—we have no scientific basis or proper research to show how it has been arrived at. That is a folly and a great disrespect to our democracy.

I can only echo the point made by my noble friend Lord Boateng when he spoke last week very powerfully about what we would say if one of the countries of the British Commonwealth had a newly elected Government that used their power in that country’s Parliament to reduce the number of seats in that Parliament and thereby harm that nation’s democracy. We would have plenty to say, and rightly so.

[Lord Tyler]

I want to contribute only very briefly. I echo what my noble friend Lord Baker said earlier about the experience that some of us had some years ago. I do not go back as far as he does in parliamentary experience, but when I was elected in 1974 there was very limited support for the Back-Bench Member. I remember that well.

What has been interesting about this debate is that a number of colleagues—from both sides of the House, as it happens—have contributed on the basis of their experience of the other place. With the exception, I think, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, every one of the speakers has spoken with that experience and authority.