Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 13, so eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, despite the technical difficulties. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, with great pleasure. It is good to see her back in the Chamber. I agreed with everything she said. I also welcome the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bull.

The amendment touches on a matter that is now assuming immensely greater interest among the people of these islands, as the harsh possibility of a no-deal Brexit dawns on them. People are awakening to the reality that their right to move to work in EU countries might now be limited as a direct result of the 2016 vote, notwithstanding the multitude of platitudes expressed by Brexiteers during that referendum.

Perhaps I may refer to one particular group in the service sector, and, in doing so, I draw attention to my registered interests. I highlight the need for those in the performing arts sector to have unrestricted free movement across the countries of our continent. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has already very effectively addressed this dimension, which is so close to his heart. Such freedom of movement is absolutely basic to the cultural services they provide. Many of them, particularly those who are self-employed, have been devastated by the Covid lockdown, and restrictions on their movement once the Covid threats ease would be a second body blow that they just could not endure.

The Government claim that they support the securing of mutuality for the creative sector between the UK and the countries within the European Union. When the Minister responds, will he clarify where they stand on the Creative Europe programme? It is so important for the devolved nations in developing their existing links and helping them maximise their contribution to the UK’s soft-power objectives.

Other people are expressing horror at the fact that they will not be able to take their pet dogs with them when they travel to and forth in our continent without pre-arranged veterinary certificates. Lo and behold, we do not have the number of vets required to handle such cases, as so many of them originate from the European Union and have been given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they are no longer welcome here. With a proportion of them now opting to go home and very few new vets coming to the UK given the Brexit uncertainty, the whole of the animal sector faces a crisis. Apparently, there have been a significant number of qualified vets among refugees seeking a home in Britain. It would be very helpful if the Government could fast-track them to enable them to help us out in the plight that faces us.

The harsh, cold reality of a no-deal Brexit is now staring us in the face. There is something ironically, cruelly appropriate that the free movement of people—one of the original attractions of having our continent reunited after two disastrous wars during the first half of the 20th century—is now one of the first potential casualties of Britain’s retreat into offshore isolation, hiding behind an array of gunboats to secure our place in the world. Presumably, that is the new normal to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred. And is it not cruel that we—the generation who have enjoyed freedom of travel for work, education and leisure purposes—are the ones taking that great boon of unhindered travel away from our children and grandchildren? We should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves, and I can only shudder at how history will judge us.

I fully support the amendment, although I do not pretend for one moment that it will somehow begin to put right all the negative impact of Brexit in its worst, ugly guise that now stares us in the face. I say no more.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I agree with every word that he said, and he said it most eloquently.

I want to speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I have to say that very carefully because it is getting more and more confusing. We have the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, me—Lord Foulkes—and now there is another Fox here, although I think of the noble Lord as the friendly fox. I am sure I am giving nothing away when I say that.

These days, sadly, the Brexiteers comprise almost the whole of the Cabinet. It seems to be the only requirement to be a member of the Cabinet—not to have ability but just to have campaigned for Brexit. It is certainly not ability—that is very obvious. Also, this place is becoming increasingly packed with Brexiteers, who, sadly, inhabit both sides of the House.

I am what they all call a “remoaner”. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, whether “remoaner” is the right term. Well, I make no apologies for continuing to be a remainer—and I will continue to be one. Over the last 40 years we have had not just mobility for trade and reciprocal rights to work but free healthcare as we have travelled throughout Europe. We have had the right of abode, which we will now get for a measly 90 days. That will thwart some of the people on the other side of the House with two homes. We have had the right to study and many more reciprocal rights. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others that that is sharing sovereignty, not surrendering it. Sharing sovereignty does not mean surrendering it.

I want to take this opportunity to say just one thing: that those of us who have valued, and continue to value, those rights should not be intimidated in any way by the Brexiteers. After all, they went on and on for decades until they got their referendum, which, sadly, they won. It is our right to continue to advocate the case for European co-operation. Incidentally, we should also not be put off by the faint-hearted in our own parties.

Those of us who believe in the European ideal—the European single market, a customs union, European co-operation generally, and working with our closest allies and neighbours—should keep on saying that. We should reaffirm our commitment and determination to return to membership at the first possible opportunity. After all, as others have, rightly, said, the current fiasco over Brexit makes it even more imperative that we should look at that option.

Bankers, those working in insurance and people in many other businesses are moving from the United Kingdom to the continent of Europe. That is one of the ironies of it, and some of them of course are Brexiteers. Jacob Rees-Mogg in the other place is making huge amounts of money out of investments in Ireland and not in the United Kingdom, and Jim Ratcliffe of INEOS, one of the leading Brexiteers, is moving production of the new Grenadier vehicle to the continent of Europe. That is not patriotism; it is despicable, and it should be criticised by people opposite who aver that they believe in the United Kingdom.

So let us reaffirm our belief and not be intimated by the Brexiteers, and let us start now. I remember the referendum when we reaffirmed our commitment to the European Union. I fought very hard for that and we have enjoyed the last 40 years. I hope that I will be around for the next referendum—I might just be if it comes sooner rather than later—to make sure that we return to the European Union, taking our rightful place as part of the united Europe that, sensibly, we have been, and ought to remain, part of.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to which I have added my name. It addresses the level of representation that devolved Wales should have in the House of Commons.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, described, Amendment 14 provides for a minimum of 35 MPs from Wales. Two distinct issues are at stake with regard to the appropriate level of representation from Wales and they are interrelated. We shall return to the second, the appropriate size of constituency, on which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has commented, when we debate Amendment 22, so I will not go on to that aspect now. The first and more fundamental issue is whether Wales—or, for that matter, Scotland or Northern Ireland—should, as some suggest, have fewer MPs in future compared with the level that we have enjoyed in the past because we now have our own elected legislatures.

The question arises as a direct result of the ad hoc system of devolution that has been developed over recent years. When non-devolved issues such as general taxation and social security—or, for Wales, policing—arise, it is totally unacceptable that Wales should have a lesser voice because of the existence of our own legislature, dealing with other matters such as education or housing. If it is unfair for Welsh MPs to legislate on English matters, as is quite arguable, it is the same unfairness as having English MPs voting on matters relating to Welsh-language television, for example, as is currently the case. Those difficulties would be sorted by a federal or confederal constitution, but as successive Governments at Westminster have refused to face such anomalies, I am afraid that they have to live with the consequences or cobble up some ad hoc system such as English votes for English laws, which is not entirely satisfactory.

These anomalies certainly do not justify the overall reduction in the number of Welsh MPs because of our unbalanced or inconsistent devolution settlement. Amendment 14 proposes a de minimis of 35 MPs—a reduction of five seats compared with the present level but well above the 29 seats recently advocated. The reduction of five seats is a recognition that relative population is a valid consideration, but it leaves some legroom and flexibility to take on board community considerations, which we will discuss later under Amendment 22.

Amendment 14 is a compromise. I could well make the case that the appropriate level should be maintained at the current 40 Members. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I, as well as other supporters of the amendment, are being pre-eminently reasonable. The amendment offers the possibility of a sensible compromise and I commend it to the Committee.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, these hybrid proceedings are very strange. I was in the Committee Room on Tuesday, so I know that my face is appearing on large screens in front of those noble Lords who are present—quite a frightening prospect.

Devolved Administrations: 20th Anniversary

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I am in a unique position in this Chamber tonight—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

As always.

[Lord Wigley]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his constructive comments.

I am unique in that I am the only Member who has been a Member of both Chambers here and of the National Assembly for Wales. I immediately acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, can boast the same in relation to Scotland. There are three Members in their places who were elected to the National Assembly for Wales on that day in May 1999: the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who has already spoken, and who played a distinguished part as a Minister in Cardiff Bay and in this place, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I, too, want to put on record our thanks for the way he steered and led the Conservative Party in Wales to take a positive attitude towards devolution, which was still in some doubt 20 years ago, but now is fairly clear-cut. I also thank him for his kind words today. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, not only for his words today but for the decisive role he played in 2006 in steering the Government of Wales Bill to the statute book and for persuading the Cabinet to find time for it. That is not perhaps totally appreciated.

I served as leader of the Opposition during that first year of devolution. At one point during the election count, I thought, with some trepidation, that I was heading to be First Minister, but when the final count was complete, although Plaid Cymru had 30% of the vote and 17 seats—a commendable achievement—it was not quite enough to form a Government. In fact, all five Administrations in the National Assembly have been Labour-led, and that is one of the problems of which Welsh voters have become aware. For any democratic system of government to work, it is essential for voters to feel that they can change the political complexion of the Administration. After 20 years, with some of the same Ministers in post in Cardiff Bay today as served in 1999, this is becoming a problem not just for Wales, which needs to feel that we have meaningful democracy, but, I suggest, equally for Labour. It might need a period in opposition to renew itself, to hone fresh policies and to bring in fresh blood.

However, some things have changed. The Assembly elected under the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998 was in many ways little more than a glorified county council. It had no primary law-making powers or tax-varying powers, or even control over all aspects of its own Administration. That most inane term—the Welsh Assembly Government—was devised, but it has now, rightly, long since been jettisoned into the dustbin of history.

Much has now changed. The National Assembly now has primary law-making powers over devolved matters. It also has the recently transferred tax-varying powers, and we wait to see the creative way in which these might be used. It is worth noting that, unlike the 1997 referendum, when the vote was very narrow, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned a moment ago, in the 2011 referendum there was a landslide in favour of enhanced powers for the National Assembly, reflecting the extent to which the devolved system of government has been accepted by Welsh voters.

Successive opinion polls show that fewer than 20% of the voters would now opt to abolish the Assembly, and when they are asked whether they really want to revert to being governed by a Secretary of State like Mr Redwood, that figure rapidly shrinks. Of course, the Assembly has made mistakes over the years, one such being the disbanding of the Welsh Development Agency, which undertook excellent work. The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, who was in his place a moment ago, played a vital part in the development of the WDA’s work.

Of course people are critical, but nothing like as critical as they currently are of Westminster. That, no doubt, is the background to the independence rally, which attracted thousands of people to Cardiff earlier this month. The demand for independence is not as great in Wales as it clearly is in Scotland, but it is increasing, and the Brexit debacle is undoubtedly a driving force for many people to look afresh at the independence question. If a hard Brexit comes about, the present trickle could well become a surge, and if Scotland becomes independent and Ireland is quite possibly reunited, leaving Wales as a very junior partner in a rump UK, the demand for independence in Wales will also rapidly grow. The prospect of a hard Brexit and an isolationist UK is a major driving force in that direction.

As the powers of the National Assembly have increased, the pressure on the 60-Member Chamber has become ever more acute. The need to scrutinise primary legislation, the need to hold the Executive more rigorously to account, and the need to engage with the implications of the new post-Brexit order, about which we heard a few moments ago, mean that a 60-Member Assembly is just too small. It compares with, I think, 108 Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. The National Assembly is smaller than some county councils. Its needs to be increased for the next election to between 80 and 90 Members, who, to my mind, should be elected by the STV system of proportional representation. The additional list system currently used is seriously defective. It provides two classes of Member—one with intense constituency work and the other without the necessary focus that serving a constituency rightly imposes on AMs, as it does on MPs.

Fortunately, the design of the Senedd Chamber provides for such an increase at little cost. Incidentally, it is worth reminding the House that the cost of the Wales Senedd building—at around £60 million—compares rather favourably with that of the new Scottish Parliament building, but I will not follow that any further. In considering such electoral reform, I suggest that the Assembly would do well to enable young people aged 16 and 17 to become participant members of Welsh democracy.

Whatever criticism we might have of the Welsh Government in policy terms, they have overall been generally prudent in their use of resources, and, incredibly, were punished by the Westminster Government for being so. A decade ago, the Labour-Plaid coalition Government rightly decided to aggregate moneys which at the year end, for whatever reason, were not spent and to pool them into a fund for capital projects. The first such fund of some £400 million was used to invest in hospital and school buildings; the second fund, when it had reached some £300 million, was appropriated by the Treasury under the Conservative Government. That, frankly, was an absolute disgrace. What a way to reward financial probity.

While in theory the new constitutional settlement under which the National Assembly works, with a reserved power model replacing the conferred power model of the 1998 Act, is much more acceptable, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, in practice the extent of exceptions and split authority renders it open to the same criticisms of opaqueness and uncertainty as was previously the case. You go around the square but in the opposite direction and sometimes arrive at the same point.

We get the impression in Wales that civil servants in Whitehall are still reluctant to recognise that in most devolved matters there should be a clean break to facilitate clear lines of responsibility and answerability. Within the framework of a British state, which may or may not survive, there is a clear logic in having a federal model, with the clear-cut delineation of responsibility that that implies. This will become even more pressing if we leave the European Union, and powers—for example, over the UK single market or state aid—currently exercised in Brussels will in practice thereafter be centralised in London. That, frankly, is just not acceptable. It is as though EU responsibilities for the single market were put exclusively into the hands of Germany. Unless Westminster wakes up to this danger, it will become another driving force towards the break-up of Britain as we know it.

We need such a level playing field for a purpose: to trigger self-regenerative and sustainable economic growth in Wales that can at long last raise average incomes in Wales to an acceptable level. This has been one of the greatest disappointments of the economic failure of successive Governments both in Cardiff and in London. The ONS figures published today for gross disposable household income per head show that Wales is at the bottom of the UK table, both of nations and of regions. Our figure of under £16,000 per head compares with London standing at over £27,000 per head—an astounding 77% higher.

That is the pattern that we suffered before devolution and it persists. We desperately need a change of Government in Cardiff Bay to deliver economic regeneration for our country. In securing this, we need to see not just worthy plans, blueprints and initiatives, which the Assembly would be very good at; we need to ensure that these are turned into reality, which is sometimes more of a challenge.

Then there is the issue of which government functions are devolved and which, within the framework of the current devolution settlement, are best undertaken on a UK basis. This matter was addressed a few years ago by the Silk commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was a distinguished member. The commission recommended the devolution of police responsibilities to the National Assembly, and it did so after considering compelling reasons, including the fact that many responsibilities which impact on police work, such as highways, social work, community cohesion, mental health and local government, are all already devolved. Police and home affairs are devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I ask the Minister, in responding, to give some commitment that the Government might look again at this matter.

Finally, perhaps I may address an issue that is a challenge to the National Assembly: the erosion over the past 20 years of the media in Wales, as indeed elsewhere. The financial pressure on newspapers has led to a staggering reduction in the coverage of political and civic matters, and now we have the centralisation of commercial radio, with implicit uniformity of news coverage and the elimination of proper reporting of the National Assembly’s work. The result is that the voting public are just not given in-depth analysis of the decisions and debates undertaken in the Assembly. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that turnout in elections has steadily reduced. This has to be addressed for the sake of effective democratic government.

The real test of the devolved system of government in Wales will come at the next election, when, for the first time since those heady days of 1999, there is a real possibility of the National Assembly not being governed by a Labour-led regime. Plaid Cymru and its new leader, Adam Price, in forming such a Government, will play a responsible part in improving the government of Wales within the present settlement, while of course seeking greater powers for the Assembly and seeking to retain Wales’s essential links with Europe, which are so vital for our manufacturing and farming sectors, as well as for our cultural identity. This will inevitably lead to greater independence, but that should not frighten the citizens of our fellow nations in the UK. It is a matter of taking responsibility, and of mutual respect. It is a journey that we have already started, and it will go just as far and as fast as the people of Wales wish. It will be completed when we reach a stable, ongoing, harmonious relationship with our British neighbours and with the nations of the European mainland to which we belong.

Wales could do so much more to help itself, given a stable union of European nations within which to grow and flourish; given the powers to do everything we can to help ourselves; and given an appropriate voice within wider contexts, where decisions are taken further afield that influence our well-being and prospects. The step taken 20 years ago was in the right direction, but we have so much more to do. My party looks to an opportunity at the next election to lead Wales towards the self-fulfilment that is within our reach and thereby to contribute to our continent and to a wider world.

Constitutional Convention

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

For once, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for intervening because he has reminded me of that, and we should keep reminding the people of Scotland that it was the SNP that helped to bring down Jim Callaghan’s Government and gave us Margaret Thatcher and a Tory Government for nearly 18 years.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Not in Wales.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Where was I? As a result, nothing was done by that Government and some of us felt that the opportunity had been lost. However, after some reflection, the campaign was revived and, although unfortunately we were not able to persuade the Thatcher Government to act, we came up with a very novel idea, which will be the central part of my argument today. It was that the Labour Opposition should take the initiative in setting up a convention.

Therefore, Labour, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, I am glad to say, along with the Greens and the Communist Party, set up the unique Scottish Constitutional Convention, consisting of all Scottish MPs, Peers and party and union representatives, as well as the Churches—one of the Church representatives, Canon Kenyon Wright, chaired the executive of the constitutional convention—and representatives from all civil society. The purpose was to devise a plan for a Scottish Parliament. In spite of subsequent claims to the contrary, neither the SNP nor the Tory party supported the convention officially, although, to their credit, individual Tories and nationalists did.

The report of that convention became the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament—almost every detail in the report was incorporated into the Bill for setting it up—and it enabled the Labour Government elected in 1997 speedily to introduce legislation to do so. It showed what can be done if all sections of society come together early on. Rather than legislation starting from a blank sheet of paper once a Government were elected, we had that blueprint.

That Scottish Parliament, as we know, has now been operating for nearly 20 years. Together with the subsequent Welsh Assembly and the revival of the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, despite its recent suspension, it has given substantial, though variable, administrative and legislation devolution—perhaps best described as asymmetric devolution—to those three parts of the United Kingdom. But, as the House of Lords Constitution Committee rightly and wisely reported in 2016, that leaves England,

“the largest, most powerful nation in the UK … without separate recognition and … representation”.


It has also produced some anomalies. The late Tam Dalyell—although an opponent of devolution, he was my friend—used to argue that, as a Westminster MP, he was able to vote on education in Blackburn, Lancashire, but not in Blackburn, West Lothian, which he represented. It was useful for two towns to have the same name for him to make that comparison. That anomaly became known as the West Lothian question.

As we know, David Cameron tried to deal with the legislative democratic deficit faced by England with the unfortunately titled English votes for English laws, or EVEL—that is E-V-E-L, or maybe not—which has restricted non-English MPs from voting on purely English Bills at certain stages. However, a recent report from Queen Mary University concludes that it has not answered the West Lothian question decisively. It has instead opened up a series of new and equally intractable questions. It has been a damp squib at best, but is perhaps better described as a spectacular failure.

Only the kind of coherent and comprehensive devolution I am arguing for can resolve it. That brings me to administrative devolution, where—as my noble friend Lady Quin reminded me just yesterday—the English regions feel as alienated from Whitehall as Scotland did and does. Here there has been what might be called an à la carte menu—more like a dog’s breakfast—of different schemes with catchy titles such as northern powerhouse, metro mayors, city deals and Midlands engine. All this has resulted in a piecemeal pattern, with most of the powers still residing in Whitehall. For example, the northern powerhouse—as we heard earlier at Question Time, the mayor of Liverpool has resigned from it in protest—was described by the Institute for Public Policy Research last week as,

“a top-down agenda dominated by central government”.

Of course, much of rural England is outside this network and feels increasingly left behind. The disparity in fiscal devolution is reflected by the control of revenue. The Scottish Parliament now controls 43% of tax revenues, Wales 21% and Northern Ireland 14%, while English local authorities trail behind, collecting only 9% of their revenue.

The challenge is how to produce a more coherent and comprehensive, but not necessarily uniform—that is an important qualification—system of devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom, which addresses the English democratic deficit. Some argue in favour of an English parliament, which may be attractive for legislation but does not deal with the demand for administrative decentralisation to the regions. Various attempts to start regional devolution in England—including my noble friend Lord Prescott’s plan, which died with the failed referendum in the north-east of England—have perished because Whitehall departments clung on to the real powers. They kept the real powers and would not allow them to go to the proposed regions. Nor, of course, does that deal with legislation.

The clue to solving this conundrum lies in looking at the example of the Scottish Constitutional Convention I described earlier, which is why I strongly support setting up a UK constitutional convention to come forward with a coherent and comprehensive plan. It could advise on how decision-making can best be devolved administratively and legislatively, where appropriate, throughout England as well as the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Labour Party is committed to setting up such a convention, but only when elected, and the Liberal Democrats support such a convention to move towards a federal or quasi-federal UK. Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit supports a similar convention to build cross-party consensus, and advocates a high level of public engagement, which I hope we can all agree is essential. Others involved in this issue, including the Constitution Society, argue for and support the idea of a constitutional convention.

Such a structure could enable those of us—I know it is not all of us—who seek reform of the second Chamber to replace the House of Lords with an indirectly elected senate of the nations and regions. It would have some democratic legitimacy, but would not challenge the primacy of the directly elected House of Commons.

I am glad that we have one of the more flexible and powerful Ministers answering the debate today—flattery will get me everywhere, I hope, but it is true. I hope he will agree to look at setting up such a convention. I know he cannot give us an immediate answer but I hope he will take it to his colleagues. However, if the present Government refuse to set up a convention, I do not see why it cannot be done now by Labour and the other opposition parties, working together with Churches and civil society, as we did in Scotland. I have suggested this to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition on two or three occasions now. That way, we would have a blueprint ready to implement when we return to power—as inevitably we will. It was done by an enlightened Scottish Labour Party in the 1990s. Where Scotland led, surely the UK can follow.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Committee: 9th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Wigley]

Indeed—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was making earlier; I agree. Given the current role of EU law regulating action in all parts of the UK in such subjects, partly to facilitate a single market with a level playing field—the point that the noble Lord was making—and partly to ensure that in matters which by their nature cannot be constrained by political borders, there is a coherent common approach. I accept this. Indeed, last week I proposed an amendment to provide a framework agreement for environmental policy—which, quite amazingly, the Government rejected. However, if there are to be such frameworks, the devolved Administrations and the devolved legislatures, whose legislative competence is being constrained by such frameworks, must surely agree the proposed steps jointly with the UK Government. I have tabled an amendment to an amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, providing a mechanism to this end. That will be debated later so I will not anticipate that debate now.

Let us be clear: unless there is agreement between Westminster and the devolved Governments on these matters, the continuity Bill will be enacted by the Assembly and will take precedence in Wales. Surely it is time for the UK Government to reconsider what is seen as an obdurate stance and agree a sensible, balanced and respectful way forward.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 8th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I have put my name to four amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

What about Scotland?

[Lord Wigley]

What about Scotland, indeed? I will not trouble the Committee by going down that avenue. First, I apologise for the fact that, although I was in the House at the time of the Second Reading, I was unable to take part in the debate. However, I read the report of the bits that I was not in the Chamber for. I was particularly impressed by the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which are relevant to our debate tonight.

I have always been a strong advocate of free, unfettered trade unions having an essential role in the checks and balances within any free economy. From my previous life in industry—particularly my time as financial controller at Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil—I know the importance of having strong, well-led trade unions. It is in the interests of the owners, the management and the workforce alike that trade unions are facilitated and not undermined in undertaking that essential role.

I support Amendment 16 standing in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Ely and Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. It excludes important services in Wales from the provisions of the 1992 Act—specifically health and school-age education, which are entirely devolved functions. Other amendments, which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will speak to in a few moments, address a wider sphere, but they are all relevant to the central proposition that it is totally unacceptable for the UK Government to create a legislative framework for devolved services which will lead to a totally unnecessary poisoning of industrial relations in Wales.

We have a long and honourable tradition of trade unions in Wales. We recognise the essential need for trade unions to stand up for the rights of their members, and in recent years the workforce of the public services in Wales has not been involved in any spurious or politically motivated strike action. Because of our tradition of partnership working, we have avoided strikes. And, as so many contributors tonight have mentioned, it is not in Wales that the junior doctors have been on strike.

So if it is not broken, why on earth are the Government imposing this legislation on Wales without any discussion whatsoever? Not only is the legislation being imposed on Wales, it is being done in a manner that totally ignores the agreed framework set up as part of the devolution settlement to deal with such issues. As was emphasised by the former Presiding Officer of the National Assembly, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the UK Government are riding roughshod over established agreements. As he said in the debate in the Assembly a couple of weeks ago on this very issue,

“the terms set out in devolution guidance note 9, paragraph 11, have not been adhered to by the UK Government in this case … there has not been proper consultation, either through the Wales Office or directly with Welsh Government”.

This amounts not only to a cavalier disregard of the right of the Welsh Government to be involved in discussions on policy that impacts on their ability to deliver devolved services for which they are held responsible, but also ignores the working practices that have been set up by Westminster, as has been emphasised tonight.

A similar lack of consultation has been witnessed in Scotland. The Minister replying to that allegation in the House of Commons on 14 September merely assessed that consultation was,

“open to every stakeholder in the United Kingdom, including those in Scotland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/9/15; col. 771.]

What an appallingly arrogant attitude towards an elected Government and what a glaring example of the lack of respect towards other elected public representatives.

The Government would have been very well advised if they had consulted the Welsh Government before going down this path. Had they done so, they would have realised that, because this Bill, if enacted, will have a direct impact on the way the Welsh Government undertake their statutory responsibility for devolved services, a legislative consent order will need to be passed by the National Assembly for Clauses 3, 12, 13 and 14 to be applicable in Wales. Two weeks ago, as has been mentioned, such an order was in fact tabled in the National Assembly and voted down by 43 votes to 13.

If the Government are so arrogant or, if I may say so, so stupid as to take this Bill forward in its present form, unamended, clearly, the issue will again end up in the courts, which is not where these things should be resolved. To avoid such an outcome, the Welsh Government have asked the UK Government to amend this Bill to exclude Wales and Welsh public services from its provisions. The Labour Government in Cardiff are fully supported by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly in this matter. Indeed, it has been reported in the press that Conservative AMs are extremely unhappy at having been put in this position. The words quoted in the press were that they are “in despair”. One can well understand that; although out of misplaced loyalty, I suggest, they supported their Westminster counterparts when it came to a vote.

I appeal to the Minister to undertake, between now and Report, to meet representatives of the political parties in Wales, particularly Welsh Ministers, and to bring forward reasonable amendments to avoid the consequences of these disastrous provisions.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

No, I do not want to change that. People can join as boy soldiers, and they can prepare to defend their country. If they are ready to prepare to defend their country, they should be able to vote in the referendum.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 9 and 20, in my name, which are linked to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and are aimed at achieving the same objective. We have all seen a number of different proposals for doing that, but there seems to be a broad-based feeling that, for this purpose, the vote should be extended to 16 and 17 year-olds throughout the United Kingdom.

Many of the arguments have been ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on the basis of his experience of the Scottish referendum. I too campaigned in the Scottish referendum—although I am sorry to say that we were not on the same side, and that I probably campaigned less successfully than he did. One thing that we could all see, whichever side we supported, was the enthusiasm that was there and the willingness to engage. I am sure that a lot of young people will take what they got from that referendum campaign with them through the rest of their lives. I very much hope that the lessons from Scotland will be borne in mind, and that even if we do not come to a conclusion on this matter tonight at Committee stage, they will be borne in mind on Report.

Another factor that has not been mentioned is the way in which the interest and enthusiasm of 16 and 17 year-olds, and other young people, can affect older people. Older people find that they have to engage with arguments that perhaps they have not previously thought through themselves. Some may be led to follow the line taken by 16 and 17 year-olds and some may not. Certainly in Scotland many families were divided—and not necessarily on an age basis. I accept that we cannot say which way young people’s votes went, but my goodness, they made a difference to the process of holding a referendum, and the longer-term benefits were that people would be more active citizens as a result of their experience, whatever the outcome of the referendum might be.

I remind noble Lords that for a possible referendum in Wales on tax-varying powers—I believe that my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas could confirm this—powers have already been passed over to the National Assembly by Westminster, so that any such referendum that may take place could be open for 16 and 17 year- olds to participate in. So the principle is being extended for the purpose of referenda. If it is valid in the context of a referendum on tax-varying powers, how much more so is it when such far-reaching decisions are being taken in the context of the relationship with Europe?

There has been talk in Scotland among some people—I do not necessarily agree with them—that there should not be referenda too frequently. I certainly feel in the context of Europe that we should not be having referenda too frequently, and a decision taken now is likely to stay with those 16 and 17 year-olds for the rest of their lives. It is very far reaching, and whichever way it goes, it will be with them.

The other consideration is whether they are equipped to make a decision. I feel that 16 and 17 year-olds—indeed young people generally—are more likely to be equipped to take a decision on this than many older people, if we are trying to come to a conclusion on capacity to take a decision. We have heard of three factors and I want to underline and stress one of them. We have heard about tax-paying and the ability to enrol, if not directly to fight, in the Armed Forces. That is the question and it was the basic rationale behind the creation of the European Union two generations ago. There were people with a vision that never again would our continent tear itself to bits with two bloody civil wars. These young people’s future can be determined by that. More than any other argument that we will pursue from now until the referendum, there is the question of holding this continent of ours together and not fighting each other in future. That must be basic. For that purpose, if for no other, those young people should have the vote.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Roper. I believe that the provisions of this pair of amendments are absolutely fundamental to holding any meaningful referendum. Unless the implications of a change—and, indeed, the implications of staying in—are spelt out quite clearly, how are the public to be in a position to make an informed judgment? If we believe in referenda—I indicated earlier that there are circumstances in which I do—it is absolutely essential that we have this sort of provision. We have had a number of referenda in Wales; the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred a moment ago to the referendum on opening or closing pubs on Sundays. There was also the 1979 referendum, which the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, will remember very well as he left me with some bloody noses on that occasion. There was one in 1997 and a subsequent one in 2011. In each, it was necessary to spell out the implications of what was taking place. As far as we in Wales are concerned, there would be far-reaching effects, on two sectors in particular.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to the importance of the Japanese manufacturing sector in Wales and the excellent work that was undertaken by the Welsh Development Agency in attracting more than 50 Japanese companies to Wales. Companies in Japan and Wales have indicated their concern if their strategy of locating their manufacturing capacity in the UK in order to sell to the European market was to be undermined by a change of this sort. The implications of pulling out of the European Union certainly need to be spelt out in those terms. In Wales, we have one very significant manufacturer, Toyota, on Deeside. If anything was to undermine that, it would be a body blow. We also have British Aerospace on Deeside, which works very closely with European partners. There would be immensely damaging implications for the company and the 7,000 or 8,000 jobs in north-east Wales. That needs to be spelt out so voters in the area know.

The other sector that would be affected is the agricultural sector, where up to 80% of income is now related to activity on which the European Union has a bearing. My friends in rural Wales in the farming fraternity most certainly have great fears—those, too, need to be spelt out for residents in rural Wales who may not be farmers themselves but will need to know the effect on their community if the main industry in the area is undermined. For those reasons I support the amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I will say a very few words in support of the excellent amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roper. First, I underline what my noble friend Lady Quin said at the start and what was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Radice. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, finds himself in new territory now, which I am sure he will welcome. The fact that one amendment has been passed means that he is free, at last, to exercise the discretion that I know he has. If I may say so modestly, I think that he would increase his stature greatly if he now exercised that discretion from time to time. It will not delay the Bill any further, undermine it in any way or create problems with the House of Commons—it is not going to create any problems. Knowing him well, admiring him and respecting him, and having had a number of conversations with him, I hope that he will see himself as free to accept this amendment and, perhaps, some later amendments. That would go a long way to legitimising his position, and that of the Bill.

I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said that his amendment was complementary to those of mine that are now numbered as Amendments 42C, 42D and 42E, which relate to reports by the Secretary of State on the transfer of powers, the negotiations and the competencies. It is also complementary to the excellent amendment that my noble friend Lord Lipsey put forward and which I have had the pleasure of adding my name to, Amendment 69, on the public information office. That, too, would be complementary and helpful.

I have two substantial points to make. One is to compare this with the Scottish referendum. Those of us from Scotland are beginning to think that it has been going on for ever, and we still have a long way to go—but the one thing we cannot say in relation to the Scottish referendum is that we have not been provided with information. We have had assessment after assessment by each of the departments of the United Kingdom Government, and there are more to come; we have had the so-called White Paper, Scotland’s Future, from the Scottish Government; we have had the no campaign arguing its case, Better Together; we have had think-tanks galore; and there will be more over the next few months until 18 September. If and when it comes, this European Union referendum will be no less momentous than the Scottish referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I want to say a few words on the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Anderson and Lord Davies of Stamford. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, can hear me, although whether he wants to or not is another matter.

I, along with my colleagues, have tabled about 10 amendments in this group. Some commentators outside this House have said that this is a disgrace and really dreadful. I see some nodding across the House—I presume in agreement with those commentators. It is our right and privilege to put down amendments and we should consider them carefully. I tabled a large number on this issue so as to give various options for the date—that is all. Some other commentators outside have said that the amendments are completely contradictory because they give different dates, but that misunderstands the purpose of Committee stage. As I understand it, the Committee stage of a Bill is for examining various options, and I have put down options for before the general election, after the general election and, as it happens, at the general election.

Some people argue—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, might do it from his own perspective—that there should be an “in or out” referendum as soon as possible. Some pro-Europeans also argue that—in other words, in order to clear up the matter for another generation, just as we supposedly did in 1975, let us have an “in or out” referendum. If we are going to do that—forget about the renegotiation; this is just about whether we think that the principle of the European Union is right—then the early dates we have suggested in Amendments 13 and 14 of 22 May 2014 and 15 May 2015 would be ideal. One is the date of the European election and the other is the date of the general election. If you wanted to carry out a referendum, you could do it on the same day as either the European election or the general election. That would be quite possible, and those dates are just put forward as options for consideration.

The other option is 2020. Again, if you want to have a proper, thorough and widespread renegotiation, then the more time you have to do it, the better. As others said earlier, we still do not know exactly what the Prime Minister wants to renegotiate. When he was interviewed on the Andrew Marr programme, he did not seem to know which areas he wanted to renegotiate. We do not have the details of all the areas, so perhaps more time is necessary.

Amendments 16 to 20 would provide the opportunity for Ministers to decide the date depending on the outcome of the renegotiation. They would provide sensible flexibility in relation to the decision on the date and that might be better. Amendment 21 would insert,

“after consultation with the First Ministers of the devolved administrations”.

A journalist writing for the Daily Telegraph said that that would give Alex Salmond a veto.

As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows, I am the last person—perhaps the second last person; he is the last person—who would want to give Alex Salmond a veto on anything at all. It does not provide a veto: it is just a consultation with the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the date.

The noble Baroness opposite agreed with my critics but I hope she will agree with me now that these amendments provide the options for consideration by this Committee, which is its purpose. No doubt when we get to Report we will have firmed up the dates and will be clearer of what the desirable date should be.

[Lord Wigley]

On the point of consultation with the First Minister of Wales, for example, will he bear it in mind that in the period 2014-20 we are in receipt of structural funds? If we pull out half way through that period there will be considerable uncertainty and therefore his input would be significant.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, because that is exactly the kind of thing that the First Ministers of the devolved Administrations could put into the debate. It is not a veto. It simply provides an opportunity for them to say, “Look, if you do it on this particular date it is going to be unhelpful and difficult because of certain circumstances”. For example, we are having the Commonwealth Games in Scotland and there may be other events in the future during which it would be undesirable to have a referendum, or before or after. The amendment will give the devolved Administrations the opportunity to consult.

This group of amendments provides the opportunity for Euroenthusiasts to have an early date if they want to settle matters once and for all; equally Eurosceptics or Europhobes will have the same opportunity—and here is a Europhobe just to prove it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

We are getting near the end; this is wonderful. This amendment relates to language. In areas of the United Kingdom where other languages are spoken, surely it is right that the question should be in that language as well. It is incontrovertible that in Wales the question should be in Welsh. I also absolutely agree, and I am sure that my noble friends from north of the border would agree, that in the parts of Scotland where Gaelic is spoken it should also be in Gaelic. That means that there would be no doubt for those who are Welsh speakers or native Gaelic speakers, and they would know exactly what the question was. I do not think that there is any difficulty and I hope that some agreement could be reached on that.

I had tabled some amendments in relation to Cornish and Doric, which got some commentators a wee bit annoyed. If I can be permitted to speak a wee bit in Doric, and say what my granny would have said to them: “Dinna fash yersel’, ye daft wee loonies and quinies”. Not many people will understand that but one or two Scots do. In other words, “Don’t get bothered, young men and women”. It was just to enable discussion to take place but I withdrew those amendments just to keep those daft wee loonies and quinies happy. However, as far as Gaelic and Welsh are concerned the arguments are incontrovertible.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, my name is appended to this amendment and Amendment 45, which is grouped with it, stands in my name and makes express provision for the wording that would be put to the people of Wales in the Welsh language to be in the Bill. I do not need to tell noble Lords that the Welsh language has had official status in Wales for two or three years now and that it would therefore be expected that any such provisions would be in both languages. However, as the legislation enacting this comes from Westminster, we feel that if the English version is on the face of the Bill, the Welsh version should be as well. The translation I have of it here is one that I checked out with a person who had been translating for the National Assembly. It is in order as far as that is concerned, but it may need to be checked.

Constitutional Settlement

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 11th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about whom one of our colleagues once said that if this place had not existed, it would have had to have been created for him. He fits into this place so well. I congratulate—I must refer to him as my noble friend—my noble friend Lord Maclennan. I have known him for so long and most of the time we were in the same party together. I appreciate his wisdom, which others have mentioned, his knowledge and his experience. I am particularly pleased that he has included those three words “alternative constitutional settlement” in the Motion. That is what I want to concentrate on.

Let us first remember why we brought about devolution in the first place. It was not as a reaction to the SNP, it was not as a bulwark against independence and it was not, as some people hoped, as the first step towards independence—the slippery slope argument. We introduced it because in Scotland for 200 years we had had a separate system of education and local government, a separate culture and, above all, a separate legal system, but we also had a democratic deficit because we did not have appropriate democratic control of all that devolution. It was dealt with administratively and inadequately here in Westminster as a codicil to UK or English legislation or as a hurried Scottish Bill late at night, if we had the time. That is why we brought it in. It was because we wanted to do something sensible about that democratic deficit. As with all the changes that have taken place, there have been unintended consequences, and they are what we need to deal with.

Perhaps I may add to what was said earlier by my noble friends Lord Maclennan and Lord McConnell and explain how we dealt with the devolution creating the Scottish Parliament. It was the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Let us remember that the SNP boycotted it. Some people forget that. We might almost forgive them, but not quite. We had wide representation from civic society in particular, and it was based on a clear aim in the Claim of Right. I do not know whether all noble Lords have had the opportunity of reading an excellent book by Owen Dudley Edwards—I contributed a chapter to it. All the Scots Labour MPs, except Tam Dalyell, and Scots Liberal Democrat MPs signed that Claim of Right. We had a purpose. There was a real understanding of what we were aiming for. Then the Welsh Assembly followed. There was not that enthusiasm originally in Wales, but when people saw what Scotland had and what we were doing with it, as noble Lords from Wales will know, they wanted something similar, and the desire for devolution has been growing in Wales. Thankfully, Northern Ireland revived its assembly under different circumstances, and Stormont is now working as part of the whole constitutional structure.

[Lord Wigley]

The noble Lord will have noted, I am sure, that support for the constitutional settlement in Wales shot up when the National Assembly for Wales got legislative powers after the referendum last year. Therefore, enthusiasm has grown, as have the powers.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Indeed, it is understandable. It is welcome that we have a representative of the Welsh nationalists here. I underline what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said: it would be helpful if we had a representative of the SNP. I know Pete Wishart and some other MPs are quite keen on that, but there is one person who vetoes it, and he has a veto.

To return to my argument, I have written a couple of blogs recently arguing that both from the point of view of Scotland and the point of view of this place, we need a UK constitutional convention because of the piecemeal looks at constitutional reform that we have had in the past and all the anomalies and unintended consequences that have resulted. We need a coherent, consistent look, and we need to work towards a stable solution. One of the anomalies has already been mentioned: the West Lothian question. That is being dealt with separately, and I think wrongly, by the commission under the chairmanship of Sir William McKay because it is looking at it in the narrow context of how we can stop Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs voting on purely English legislation. Incidentally, it has not considered whether it would stop Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Peers voting on that legislation. That did not seem to have occurred to it until some Peers drew it to its attention. So that is being dealt with.

The other thing is that we have ended up with asymmetrical devolution. Scotland, or perhaps Northern Ireland, has the greatest amount of devolution—we could argue that—and then Wales. We then come to the West Lothian question and the problem about England. That is why I and others argue—and it is an increasing argument—that there should be a constitutional convention. My noble friend Lord McConnell said, and I think he is right, that there should be a purpose and an end in sight and that we should know where we are going and not just hope that something will emerge. That is why I am in favour of a federal United Kingdom. I have been arguing that in my own party and with the Liberal Democrats. The Liberals used to want one. I remember going to meeting after meeting where the Liberals would argue so cogently in favour of a federal United Kingdom. They should return to that, we should look at it and I hope others will look at it as the stable solution.

The other stable solution would be a centralised United Kingdom or the break up of the United Kingdom. I do not want either. I do not want a return to a centralised UK, and I do not want the break up of the United Kingdom, but a federal UK would be the way forward.

As other noble Lords have said, the UK constitutional convention could also look at this House, its purpose and its constitution. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord McConnell and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the need for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, of course, England and the regions of England to be properly and sensibly represented in this place, giving this place some enhanced credibility. That needs to be looked at. We also need to look at the relationship of the United Kingdom Parliament, the Commons and the senate, or whatever we call it, to the devolved Parliaments.

Some people argue that a federal system would not work because England is too large. If you think about it, that does not make sense because if the English Parliament—let us say that there is an English Parliament—deals with devolved matters, it is autonomous in those devolved matters, as is the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, so it gets on with its own educational system or whatever. If you agree with a federal structure, if that is the way forward, the size of the different parts does not matter. Where it may matter is when it comes to the federal Parliament, and that is where you have to look at how some balance can be struck.

Wales: National Assembly Elections

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 18th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I suppose that I, too, should declare an interest—although it is substantially smaller than that declared by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I am a little worried that I agreed with most of what she said; it may give me cause for some concern later.

I welcome this debate as it focuses on an issue that needs attention in relation to the National Assembly’s electoral arrangements. However, I believe that these arrangements should be matters for our own National Assembly to decide, not for the two Chambers in Westminster. In this regard, I concur with the sentiments of Wales’s First Minister, Mr Carwyn Jones—something that I do not always do—in today’s Daily Post when he said:

“The electoral system for the assembly is a matter for the people of Wales and no one else”.

As noble Lords will understand, I wholeheartedly agree with him on this occasion.

I am glad that my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is here—for the first time we have been able to spend some time in Grand Committee together. He speaks with the authority of a long-serving, three-term Presiding Officer of the Assembly, who is widely recognised across party divisions as having done an excellent job. No doubt he will be speaking from the context of his experience as Presiding Officer.

I want to outline the position of my party, Plaid Cymru, on these matters. The power to determine the electoral arrangements should indeed be transferred to the National Assembly. I will address the four subjects broached in this Green Paper; first, the voting system. Plaid Cymru supports the STV system mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, a moment ago. It is used in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I believe I am right—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, can correct me—that it is used in Scottish local government as well.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Yes.

[Lord Wigley]

Yes, indeed. I do not see any reason why it could not be introduced for the National Assembly for Wales. It avoids having two classes of Member, as is inherent in the present system, which was recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The panel chaired by Sir Roger Jones that looked at certain aspects of the Assembly’s work also noted that there were two different jobs being undertaken. The STV system ensures a direct link between the AM and the voters. Incidentally, alongside increasing the Assembly numbers from 60 to 80, STV was a recommendation of the commission led by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which reported on these matters in 2004. In fact, the amount of legislative work that has come to the Assembly is greater than that anticipated when he made that recommendation.

This Green Paper is very narrow and restrictive. It neither offers STV nor the status quo as options, and I wonder why not. Both options in the Green Paper involve redrawing constituency boundaries. The STV option does not add to the administrative workload at all. Maintaining the 40:20 split between the constituency and regional list AMs implies regular boundary reviews—costing about £1.7 million a time—to equalise constituency sizes. Adopting the 30:30 split involves no greater expenditure as it uses the Westminster constituencies. However, I emphasise that Plaid Cymru has consistently criticised dogmatic equalisation of voter numbers because of the importance of geographic and historic community links, and because it would be very much harder for an AM or an MP to serve some scattered rural constituencies than it would be in an inner-city area because of the scale and mileage involved.

Some people have suggested having 30 constituencies coterminous with Westminster but possibly electing two AMs each. Other colleagues may address this later, but unless the Assembly size is increased to 90 Members, the proportionality explicit in the 1997 referendum and implicit in last year’s referendum would be broken. However, such a change could deal with the gender balance issue as it would provide adequate capacity to deal with the Assembly’s legislative scrutiny role, which is increasingly becoming evident.

An Assembly of 90 Members would still be smaller than the Northern Ireland Assembly of 108 Members or the Scottish Parliament of 129 Members. I repeat that this is not Plaid’s preferred option as we regard the STV system based on 80 AMs as the best way forward. Plaid Cymru will not agree to any change that reduces the proportionality of the Assembly. For change to happen, there should be consensus, and I do not believe that there is consensus in Wales for either eliminating or reducing the proportionality of the Assembly.

On the five-year term, which seems to be the accepted norm at Westminster, we would likewise accept it for the Assembly but ensure that elections for the House of Commons and the Assembly did not coincide. It is not a matter just of the administrative arrangements, which could be complex enough with different constituency boundaries, but a matter of which candidates are speaking on which manifesto. It would become infinitely more complex.

If the present electoral system remains, the ban on candidates standing both for constituencies and for the list should be lifted. A ban is not imposed on Scotland. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talk about this previously in another context in the Chamber. There is no consensus in Wales for the current system. A similar system is operated, I understand, only in the Ukraine—which is not a particularly good precedent. The ban was introduced for glaring party-political advantage by the Labour Government at Westminster and, frankly, it should be scrapped. However, if the STV were to be adopted, there would be no need to get into those problems.

On the dual mandate, I express my personal view. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to my experience in the early years of the National Assembly. My noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas may have a different view on this matter—I am not sure. I served for two years, from 1999 to 2001, as both an AM and an MP. Frankly, it was a total nonsense to try to do so, and it was impossible to do both jobs effectively. In the early months, I found myself bouncing back and forth like a yo-yo between Cardiff, Westminster and my Caernarvon constituency—a formidable triangle. That undoubtedly contributed, along with other factors, to the emergency heart operation that I underwent at that time. Furthermore, a real complication arises if the constituency boundaries differ for the two seats—if one is representing a Westminster seat, with one set of boundaries, and a National Assembly seat, with another set.

Candidates may stand on different manifestos for the two legislatures, again causing confusion. The Assembly seat should be made vacant at the point at which an AM takes the Oath as an MP. Taking the Oath should be the determinant, not the rules that are currently applied for other purposes in the National Assembly and of which the Liberal Democrats fell foul in the last election.

I conclude as I began, by reasserting that the Assembly’s electoral system should be a matter for the people of Wales to determine.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 26th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

Well, it is for noble Lords to decide for themselves whether the noises made in this Chamber and heard in Scotland will help or hinder the outcome of a referendum that they wish to hear.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

That is exactly what the cybernats say. Is it not to try to shut us up that they are saying that?

[Lord Wigley]

No, indeed, it is not to shut anybody up but to raise the question that every noble Lord or noble Baroness will answer for himself or herself about the words that they choose in following this very important debate with regard to the future relationships of the countries of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rubbished the way in which Alex Salmond had introduced the question, referring to it as a rigged question. He did not, however, read the question out. It is:

“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”.

I have enough respect for the people of Scotland being able to make a judgment on that, whichever way it goes, because the question is absolutely clear-cut. One can of course have different versions of a question, but that is not a rigged question.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 26th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Thank you, Lord Chairman. I am really grateful to you. You are almost a relative. I have great respect for your knowledge of procedure, including procedure in the other place, where you served with great distinction as Deputy Speaker. I remember very well that you kept me in order from time to time. I wish that you had the same powers here, by the way, but that is another story.

Perhaps I may also be permitted to speak to Amendment 16, which is grouped with this amendment. I am sure that one speech would be welcomed by the House, rather than if I spoke to the amendments separately.

As to Amendment 1, I believe that I have discovered a gap, a lacuna or whatever word one should use, in the electoral process. It came about in my discussions in relation to my very good friend, the independent Member in Lothian, Margo MacDonald MSP, who I have known for many years. In raising this issue, I wish her absolutely no ill at all—quite the reverse. I hope that this issue does not arise in any way. However, it occurred to me when talking to her and then looking at the legal position that if a vacancy arises for a constituency Member, there is provision for a by-election, and if there is a vacancy for a regional Member on a party list, the next person on that list automatically takes over. However, when an independent Member either resigns or sadly dies, there is no provision for filling that vacancy. There seems to be something missing from the arrangements. I am sure that everyone would agree that there ought to be some method for filling that vacancy. Having discussed it with the helpful people in the Public Bill Office, my amendment is just one way of dealing with that issue.

If a vacancy arose due to the resignation or the decease of an independent Member, new subsection (6B) proposed in my amendment would take effect. A new calculation would then be carried out by the returning officer, in the same way as the allocation of the regional seats which resulted in the election of that independent Member. It would be:

“for each registered party which has submitted a regional list, the regional figure for the purposes of paragraph (c) is the total number of regional votes given for the party in all the constituencies”—

we know that figure; that was used in the initial calculation—

“divided by the aggregate of one plus the number of candidates of the party presently returned as constituency members for any of those constituencies plus the number of regional seats allocated under section 8 to a party at the previous general election”.

So those seats are all taken into account. Proposed new paragraph (b) states:

“for each individual candidate, the regional figure for the purposes of paragraph (c) is the total number of regional votes given for him”—

it should say “or her”, but I am sure that in this case “him” includes “her”, or embraces “her” may be a better way to put it—

“in all the constituencies included in the region”.

Then, the vacant regional Member seat would be allocated to either the registered political party or the individual candidate with the highest regional figure. That seems to me, and it seemed to the Public Bill Office, the best way to deal with it.

I hope that the Minister and all Members of the House agree that the issue needs to be dealt with. The Minister has a great deal more advisers on drafting than I do. If, for any reason, this is not the best way to deal with the matter, I hope that at the very least he will say that he will come back with an amendment that deals with it more effectively.

Amendment 16 is very different and addresses a difficult issue on which I have changed my views—as have others, I think. It concerns whether persons should be permitted to stand for both a regional seat and a constituency seat at the same election. Paradoxically, the position is different in Wales from that in Scotland. I do not understand why it should be different. In Wales, the same individual is not permitted to stand for both a regional and a constituency seat.

A few years ago, before the most recent election in Scotland, that seemed to me to be a very sensible provision. I tabled an amendment in this House. Strangely enough—but these things happen in politics—the Minister who had piloted the legislation for Wales, and argued the case in Wales that a person should not be permitted to stand for both, made an entirely opposite argument in rejecting my amendment to bring Scotland into line with Wales. I have great respect for my good and noble friend Lord Evans, especially when he can argue one way one year and the other by the next; that is a necessary skill in politics. However, he did not give any explanation for it.

I hope that if the Minister does not accept my amendment today, he will at least give some logical explanation which will convince not just me but other Members of the House why it should be different in Scotland from Wales.

Arbuthnott identified the problem of dual candidacy in his report. He said that the commission found considerable public opposition to the party control of the closed list. Concerns cited were a lack of voter choice over the selection and election of regional candidates. This was perceived to undermine legitimacy. That is not dealing with precisely my point, but he went on to state that the lack of legitimacy was compounded by the problem of dual candidacy. While candidates were defeated in their constituency, many were then elected because they were included on closed party lists. It was noted that 88 per cent of successful regional MSPs had been failed constituency candidates.

[Lord Wigley]

That was what led to the change in Wales. There were three defeated candidates in one constituency alone all of whom came back on the list. But would that problem not be overcome if there was an open list rather than a closed list?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

There is scope for another amendment, I think. I have tabled enough already, so perhaps the noble Lord might think of tabling one. Everyone here from Scotland will know that list Members have a habit of choosing a seat they would like to stand for in the constituency and then concentrate on opening an office and taking up issues in that constituency. If the constituency Member cannot deal with a problem—elected Members will know that some problems are insoluble—the candidate will jump on the bandwagon and take it up.

Dual candidacy is a real problem. I have tabled a later amendment proposing a general review of the electoral system. I will discuss that in greater detail when we get to that amendment. It would be a better way of dealing with the issue in the longer term, but this would deal with it in the short term. Our electoral system was set up with the best of intentions, but even the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who was involved, now recognises that it is not fit for purpose. One of the problems is the question of dual candidacy. I hope that other Members who have experienced the problems of dual candidacy in Scotland will comment, and I certainly hope that the Minister will consider the potential change and, at the very least, explain why there should be a different system in Scotland from the one that I understand operates quite successfully in Wales.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the noble Lord has raised two very important, if minor points. We have to remember that when we were legislating on the then Scotland Bill, in which I was involved in this Chamber, the additional Member system, as it is known, was completely new to this country. There were one or two loose ends that were not quite right.

On Amendment 16, which is the noble Lord’s more substantial amendment, I entirely agree with him. As Presiding Officer I had to deal privately with complaints from constituency Members about the activities of regional Members. It is slightly worse than the noble Lord said because quite often regional Members had not just stood and been defeated, they were intending to stand again in the constituency. People were sitting in the Parliament—quite unlike this place—and had every intention of fighting a Member sitting on another Bench. That made for bad relations within the Parliament and some people—I shall name no names—exploited it disgracefully. In Wales—