Wales: National Assembly Elections

Debate between Lord Touhig and Lord German

Monday 18th June 2012 Grand Committee

[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.

Social Fund Maternity Grant Amendment Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Touhig and Lord German

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord German]

My Lords, I should like to take a rounded view of these regulations and put them in the context of the activity of the Government in terms of poverty. There are some issues which noble Lords on the Benches opposite have raised which require some answers from the Minister and I shall raise one or two myself.

First, it is important to recognise that these regulations have the effect of providing a level of savings within the DWP budget—that is undeniable—and that these types of decisions are never easy. At face value, of course, this could be simply seen as yet another cost-saving exercise, which is the thrust of the previous three speeches. However, it should also be looked at in the broader context. I shall examine both sides of the issue in my contribution to the debate.

I preface my remarks by posing a question to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, the mover of this Motion of regret. I shall not correct him on his Welsh mutations; I shall explain to him afterwards—

[Lord Touhig]

The “d” should be a “t”.

[Lord German]

Yes, the “d” should be a “t”.

The question is about the level of savings that he and his party are looking for in the public finances and whether they are put back into good order within five years or, as I understand it from his party, within seven years. Perhaps he can tell me because I have been struggling to find the answer to the question. What is the level of interest on the loan that the country now has and the debt that we have to repay if it is to be spread over seven years rather than five, which I think was his party’s policy? At the moment we have to repay £120 million a day in interest for the next five years. If we went for the seven-year position, what savings would we need to look at from within the budgets of all the departments in the country? I still fail to understand that. As we all know, it is easy to stand up and say, “Do not cut this or that”, if in the end the summation does not add up to the figure—which I understand is the position of the Labour party at the moment.

However, I recognise that this is part of a package designed to save money and that, if the circumstances for the country were appropriate, we would not have wanted to do this. If the finances were strong, I doubt whether this would have appeared on the horizon. Fundamentally, the judgment here comes down to the question of whether this particular set of regulations fits within the whole scheme of reforms and changes to our work and benefits regime, in the context of the economy as we find it. You cannot see one particular benefit set in isolation without considering the rest. Right from the beginning when the universal benefit regime was talked about in your Lordships’ House, and through the discussion and questions about it here, I have always been attracted by one of its fundamental aims—a fundamental aim of the whole revision of the benefits structure from its current complex base to something much more straightforward and simple—which is to lift people out of poverty. The impact assessment produced by the Government showed figures which, frankly, would have made everybody around this Chamber smile.

The principal aim of the universal benefit Bill and the new work programme is to lift people out of poverty. That programme itself requires investment: it has a £4.5 billion price tag. Part of that has to be funded from within the savings that can be made from the department, and part is coming from new money that the Treasury has made available. In making this change in these regulations, are we ensuring overall that the poorest and most vulnerable are being supported while helping to lift large numbers of our people out of poverty? That is the fundamental question against which you set these regulations. If the answer to that is yes, then, clearly in the context of that whole regime, you have to move forward upon that basis.

There are some problems and concerns, and some of them have been raised already. I echo some of them and pose a new one in questions that I hope the Minister will answer at the end. First, we have this interim period between the universal benefit Bill passing through your Lordships’ House and its becoming an Act in our country. In that interim period, the current interest-free loans will no longer be available. There is a danger that the people who find themselves put in most difficulty by these regulations will turn to high-cost lenders. What comfort at all can the Minister offer for where these people might turn in that interim period so there will be no difficulties for them? It is a short, one-off period before the new loan arrangements for purchasing, say, a cart, buggy and all those matters are in place.

Secondly, as has already been alluded to, what happens when a second child is born in a family and there has been no claim for the first child? You can imagine the circumstances where that might happen. Someone who is in work, has appropriate leave and reasonable funding behind them, might decide that it is not worth the effort, hassle or for other reasons—it might be that parents provide some of this equipment—and do not apply for the grant. Then perhaps there is a period of no work and when it comes to the second child it is difficult to find that sort of money. What happens when this is the first application within the family but the application is for the second child? Again, I would value an answer from the Minister.