Scotland: Smith Commission

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Richard

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend makes a point that a number of people and commentators have been making. When we had our debate, my noble friend Lord Lexden said that in the days of Joseph Chamberlain and Gladstone that very issue was being debated in the Irish context. We have gone beyond the stage of saying that the best answer to the so-called West Lothian question was not to ask it. Those days are past, and the Prime Minister said this morning that there will be a publication of proposals on what is now called “English votes for English laws”. I resist using the acronym EVEL, because that might sometimes be a misrepresentation, but a publication of proposals will be out before Christmas and we will wait to see it. It is a proper question and a fair one, but some of the answers are not entirely straightforward.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question in a slightly different Celtic context. He will recognise that detailed proposals are being produced for Scotland. He will also recognise that, in that event, the situation in Wales cannot be allowed to continue as it is at present. I draw attention to two points. First, do the Government have any proposals that they wish to make to the people and the Government of Wales in respect of tax powers being devolved to Wales on a similar basis to those being devolved to Scotland? Secondly, how on earth can the Government justify saying that the Barnett formula should continue to apply? I listened to the Secretary of State making his Statement in the Commons this morning and he said at one stage, “Well, nobody has been able to think of anything better”. Would the Minister care to pass on to the Secretary of State the report of your Lordships’ committee on the Barnett formula? He will find that we went into it in great detail and produced an alternative that, in my submission at any rate, was clear, cogent and practicable, and it would have been effective. For the Government now to accept that the Barnett formula should continue seems to me absolutely preposterous.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is well aware that the Wales Bill, which had a Third Reading in your Lordships’ House on Monday of this week, makes provision for the devolution of tax powers to Wales. They are subject to a referendum, but of course Scotland had a referendum on the principle of tax powers back in 1997. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also indicated that he will produce a reserved powers framework for Wales by St David’s Day. I think someone said that it was just as well that St George’s Day is during “purdah” or we would have yet another commitment for England.

On the question of the Barnett formula, the leaders of the three UK political parties made it clear that the formula will continue; but with regard to Wales—and I am aware of the importance of this, having been the spokesman for the Wales Office in your Lordships’ House for two years—the United Kingdom and Welsh Governments have established a joint process to review relative levels of funding for Wales and England in advance of each spending review. That process is not affected by the commitments contained in the Smith commission proposals.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Richard

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not in a position to confirm that because it is highly speculative as to whether that would have happened or not. One does not know what kind of campaign there would have been if there had been an election on AV.

Clause 2(2) recognises the traditional right of the House of Commons to pass a Motion of no confidence in the Government on a simple majority of those voting. No-confidence votes have, until now, been a matter of convention—although it has been widely accepted that a no-confidence vote in the other place would require a Prime Minister to resign or call an early election. However, there has been nothing to date to enforce this. For the first time the Bill gives legal effect to a Motion of no confidence passed by the House of Commons. Such Motions will continue to require a simple majority.

Clause 2(2) provides that, following the passing of a no-confidence Motion in the other place, there will be a period of 14 days during which the Government may seek to gain the confidence of the other place. If, during the 14-day period, a Government emerge who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, it will be free to govern for the remainder of the five-year term since the previous general election, and the country would not have a general election. However, if no such Government emerge at the conclusion of the 14-day period, Parliament will be dissolved. As the Constitution Committee concluded, a period of 14 days strikes the right balance between allowing enough time for an alternative Government to be formed while ensuring that there is no prolonged period without an effective Government. We must bear in mind that a Government who are known to have lost the confidence of the House of Commons will continue to be the Government during the campaign period.

A Motion for an early election will be confirmed by issuing a certificate by the Speaker of the House of Commons. A similar provision is set out in the Parliament Act 1911, which provides for the Speaker of the House of Commons to issue a certificate confirming that a Bill has been certified as a money Bill. In the case of a no-confidence Motion, the Speaker’s certificate will confirm that the Motion has been passed, and that the 14-day period has ended without the House of Commons passing any Motion expressing confidence in any Government. Such a certificate will mean that there is no ambiguity about whether the other House has voted for Dissolution in the requisite majority or whether a vote of no confidence in the Government should trigger Dissolution.

Clause 2 sets out that the Speaker’s certificate, in these cases, shall be conclusive for all purposes and that the Speaker must, as far as is practicable, consult the Deputy Speakers before issuing the certificate. While it has been argued that the requirement for a two-thirds majority should not be set out in statute, I was pleased to note that the Constitution Committee shares the Government’s assessment of the Bill’s interaction with parliamentary privilege. It provides the House of Commons with a new power—one that is to be transferred from the Prime Minister to the House of Commons. We believe that such a fundamental constitutional change should be laid down in statute.

However, in doing so, the Government do not believe that the provisions in this Bill will undermine the other House’s exclusive cognisance. I have made available in the Library a copy of a memorandum that the Government placed in the House of Commons Library on 13 September setting out their view that the Bill does not affect the relationship between Parliament and the courts.

[Lord Richard]

This is the point in the Bill with which I have the most difficulty. Why on earth should a Government who have lost the confidence of the House of Commons be given, in effect, a second chance to cobble together another coalition that might have the confidence of the House of the Commons? The present situation is terribly simple and very clear, and is the way in which Governments have operated almost exclusively in the past. If you lose a Motion of confidence, there has to be an election. That is simple. Why on earth can we not stick with it?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the opportunity will be there for Parliament—to those elected to the other place—to see whether another Government can be formed. That may well be possible, but it would require the Government to have the confidence of the other place. If they have the confidence of the other place, there is no reason why they should not see out the term of the Parliament for which they were elected, subject to the provision that we are discussing. The provision places the power in the hands of Members elected to the other place and not to the Government of the day.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

We will no doubt come back to this, but I would be grateful if noble Lords would allow me to make some progress.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, if there is a period of 14 days in which discussions are taking place, you may end up at the end of those 14 days with a Government who are not the same Government as at the start of the 14 days. You may have a different Prime Minister and different Ministers; you may have different policies—all sorts of things may happen. I come back to the central point. Why on earth should we give a Government that period of additional opportunity to try to preserve a position that the House of Commons has rejected?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, that Government will require a confidence vote of Members of the House of Commons. It is the House of Commons that will determine the matter. That is an important point. If you have a fixed term but there is a clear consensus for a dissolution, there is a provision to trigger that. But if the House of Commons wishes to place its confidence in a Government, that is a matter for the House of Commons.

National Assembly for Wales: Referendum

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Richard

Thursday 17th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, having taken office I am discovering that there are many things that I am responsible for, but one of them is not to answer for Mr Peter Hain, thank goodness. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State attaches a huge priority to this. We are taking the steps as quickly as we can, and that is consistent with good governance.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, one of the great problems that I have always had in my political life is my nasty, suspicious mind, particularly when it comes to assurances given six months in advance. Can we take it as genuinely firm that, unless there is a catastrophe, this referendum will be held in the first quarter of next year, with no “ifs” and no “buts”?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord can take it as being as firm an assurance as any Minister could possibly give. There are ongoing discussions. It has been discussed by the Secretary of State with the Welsh First Minister and Deputy First Minister. There is co-operation between the respective Administrations that that should happen. I should add that the One Wales agreement of the coalition agreement in the National Assembly for Wales seeks a referendum before next year’s elections. As part of the respect agenda, we would try to honour that commitment.