Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord German

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 79, which neatly follows the questions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, about standing.

On 13 January, the following fanfare was announced from Downing Street:

“Prime Minister to chair new council with devolved governments”.

The No. 10 press release described this as a

“Landmark agreement on how UK government and devolved governments will continue to work together”,

and how an agreement on this “has been reached”. It promised “new ways of working”, “Reaffirmed principles” of

“mutual respect, maintaining trust and positive working”

and formalised a “council”, led by the Prime Minister, “overseeing strengthened working”.

I am going to come to the document that lies behind the press release in a moment. Of the five things the Government say this is going to achieve, they end with the principle about conflict resolution:

“Resolving disputes according to a clear and agreed process”.

I am trying to seek consistency in this Bill, which has been severely criticised for the relationships it is trying to and has to build with the devolved Administrations. At the same time, we have another document, setting up more machinery of government, which will look at resolving disputes. I understand that resolution of disputes is in the common frameworks procedure, but there is very little in the Bill about how the devolved Administrations can resolve disputes. I suspect—I am pretty certain—that there will be a lot of criticism over the coming months and years from the devolved Administrations.

In the document which lies behind the Prime Minister’s announcement, about the review of intergovernmental relations, there is a two-page section in which the first paragraph states:

“No Secretariat”—


it is an independent secretariat managing the council—

“or government”—

and that is all Governments in the United Kingdom—

“can reject the decision of a government”—

again, that is any Government—

“to raise a dispute.”

So this is a dispute mechanism which has clearly been put in place by the Government to provide an opportunity for the Administrations to raise their disputes. I do understand that if it is enshrined in law, if the legislation is there, it makes it trickier, but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, asked, what happens when somebody wants or objects to an interpretation, particularly that of the Secretary of State, and this process escalates?

The Bill contains a lot of procedures which could well lead to a dialogue between the devolved Administrations and the Secretary of State. There is also a huge amount of what is called “guidance”—which we shall come to later—and a number of documents are going to emerge which will perhaps put flesh on the bones of some of the things we have been talking about in the Bill.

My question is this: will this arrangement announced by the council and by the Prime Minister, no matter what this Bill comes to and no matter what the processes described in it are, allow, as the intergovernmental relations document states, any Government to bring a dispute before all the other Governments? There are 30 or 40 lines and another page about how that dispute has to be resolved and the use of an independent secretariat.

If the right relationships as described in the document from the Prime Minister were built into this Bill, I would rather hope that it would minimise the necessity for such a dispute mechanism to arise. My test of this is to ask the Minister the following question. Given the announcement, and given the availability of this procedure, is there anything that he can see apart from the legislation before us that a devolved Administration could not refer to this council? If that is so, there is a strong case for making it easier for the devolved Administrations to engage through the mechanisms of this Bill without having to go through all the processes which would lead to the dispute mechanism outlined by the Prime Minister. I am asking for consistency, and I hope that the Minister can provide it.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and agree strongly with the points that he made in opening this short debate. The devolved regimes must surely be in a position in which they can be regarded as interested parties. It stands to reason that that must be the case in certain circumstances, and there must be provision within legislation for those certain circumstances to be looked after in the context of this Bill.

I was delighted to have the opportunity to add my name to Amendment 79 put forward by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord German. I support the points he made in regard to it. The need for some indication to the devolved regimes that they are partners has surely come out of the debates we have had in the last three or four sittings of this Committee. It is time that the Government found some way of indicating that they are prepared to work on a partnership basis. These two amendments pave the way for that, and I hope the Government can respond positively.

Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord German

Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has participated in this short debate. I am not sure whether the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, is happy with the response he got, but no doubt there will be opportunities to pursue that further. I also noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. There is clearly an issue here that needs some further consideration.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for his contribution. He was Minister for Economic Development in the Welsh Government. Was it 20 years ago?

[Lord German (LD)]

Yes.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

It was a long time ago but clearly the noble Lord learned many lessons, not least the one he repeated: to stress that we in Wales received considerable benefit from the European Union and that there is a need for a guarantee that, pound for pound, we will not miss out from the changes taking place. That is a bit on a tangent from the issues we are debating; none the less, it is a well-made point and needs to be well received. Hopefully that will be the case. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord German, on his point about the Government spelling out in greater detail the rules coming through that will provide a level playing field. Those are very much needed.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his interesting contribution, as always. He asked what a subsidy is. That really goes to the heart of the Bill, does it not? It is clear from the detailed response we had from the Minister that it will require quite a lot of exercising.

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, again emphasised the need for greater clarity and transparency. That is what is coming out of this. I thought that the Minister’s responses recognised in many ways that the issues exist, but she believes that they are already covered in the Bill. We are going to need to press those aspects further as we go through the Bill. It is essential that the Bill is understood not only by those of us who work in the world of politics but, even more so, by those at the sharp end of business and industry who have to live with the consequences of it. They need transparency, and they need to be sure that they are not being enticed down a road where there may not be any hope of a satisfactory outcome. As the Bill progresses and we probe more aspects of it, I hope that that light will start shining through and that, if necessary, there will be appropriate briefings outside Committee on any further thinking or clarity that the Government can give to these issues.

I believe that the matters raised in my two amendments are relevant. The Minister confirmed that, to all intents and purposes, what is covered in Amendment 3 is covered by the Bill. That is fine; I said that I might be knocking on an open door. I am grateful for that, but I have no doubt that we will need to return to some aspects of the more general debate we have had. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord German

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lady Humphreys and Lord Roberts of Llandudno. I do not wish to repeat what I said in Committee but it would be worth outlining the two purposes of this amendment. First, it would reinstate the names of the candidates on the regional ballot paper; and secondly, it would reduce from 12, as it is now, to six the maximum number of names on the ballot paper.

The first of those objectives requires an order which, of course, can be tabled within six months or so of the next elections to the National Assembly for Wales. But, of course, the second of those matters requires primary legislation and was a block in the 2011 Assembly elections. I remind noble Lords that the names of candidates appeared on all the ballot papers for the regional ballot in Wales for the National Assembly for Wales, except at the very last elections in 2011 when they were removed.

I have three reasons for bringing the amendment forward in this format again. The first is to establish what progress has been made on the proposal. Originally it was that of the Electoral Commission—to reduce the number of names on the ballot paper from 12 to six and to examine timing issues. The second reason is to see whether it is possible, in this debate, to establish the views of the political parties towards the proposal that names of candidates should be on the ballot paper. The third is to try and establish accurately the reasons why candidates’ names were removed from the ballot paper and judge on that basis whether these reasons can be looked at afresh. Like many noble Lords, I would not want an acceptable solution ruled out because of the lack of primary legislative time.

On the first point on progress, I have read the consultation letter from the Electoral Commission, and much of what it says is that the barriers to putting the names on the ballot paper are to do with the interests of the administrators rather than the voters. It is to do with the fact that it takes some time to unfold them, lay them out flat and count them. Having stood in the regional ballot for the National Assembly for Wales, I do not think that I ever got away from a count before 7 am the following morning. That was in 2011 when I was present, as it was for the previous three elections. I do not think that it is markedly any different in time depending on the way in which the ballots are counted. That is not a reasonably rational solution. It is curious that in the letter which the Electoral Commission sent out to all the political parties and interested parties on this matter in its consultation recently, it did not mention the need for primary legislation to implement one of its proposals, which was its proposal back in 2009.

I have seen a letter to the Minister, which was copied to me by the Electoral Commission, which would lead us to believe that once the Secretary of State at that time had ruled out reducing the number of names on the ballot paper, that primary route was no longer a possibility. As my noble friends who put their names to this amendment will know, and as noble Lords here will know, we are reviewing the whole position of the way in which the National Assembly is treated. It seems to me that this is a real opportunity to examine the issue once more. I am sure that noble Lords would not want a recommendation from the Electoral Commission’s recent consultation which effectively said the same as it did in 2009—that the solution of only six names is not possible because, as at that time, the Secretary of State says that primary legislative parliamentary time cannot be found.

I turn now to the second point, which is the views of the political parties. The Electoral Commission’s evidence-gathering session has ended and all political parties in Wales have made their positions clear. I know the position of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. As noble Lords can see, the amendment follows closely my party’s policy, so I am happy to move it. I guess from the sympathetic words I received in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that Plaid Cymru supports putting the names back on the ballot paper. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us in her response whether her discussions with the Secretary of State indicate that the Conservative Party supports placing the names on the ballot paper. The position of the Labour Party still remains a mystery to me, but I am sure that I will be enlightened in the course of this discussion.

[Lord Wigley]

Before the noble Lord concludes his remarks—I support his general thrust—does he accept that if the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, as Minister, moves ahead with the undertakings that she gave on the earlier group of amendments, her provisions may well allow the Assembly to decide this issue for itself, as opposed to us taking the prescriptive decision in the way in which it is laid down in the amendment?

[Lord German]

I understand, but I repeat what I said in Committee—that it is a matter of timing. We are talking about a decision for the 2016 elections, which require an order some time between six and nine months before those elections take place so that ballot papers and everything else can be put in place. But importantly, if the Electoral Commission were to think that it needed primary legislation, this may well be the only opportunity to have it in place before 2016, given that you need to have it in place well in advance of the elections. I remind noble Lords that the current legislation states that a political party can place a maximum of 12 names on the ballot paper. However, there are only four vacancies. I am not wedded to six persons but it seems fairly reasonable that, if you had a candidate who had held a seat on the regional ballot, you are not likely to get five deaths in a row which would mean that you had nobody left on your list to fill that vacancy. Certainly, that was the view of the Electoral Commission.

Finally, I tried to establish why the names were removed in the first place. There is something of an inconsistency in the letters from the Electoral Commission on this matter that I have received and seen. It said that there was no legislative time available and therefore its recommendation of having only six names maximum in order to have a shorter ballot paper—one that was easier to manage and easier for voters to see without the print being so small that you could not read the names—was rejected by the Secretary of State because there was no time in which to introduce primary legislation. The second letter I have seen does not say that in such stark terms. It simply says that the Secretary of State rejected this proposal. I wonder whether anybody can throw any light on that issue. If we are going to put the names of candidates back on the ballot paper, we should not have a restriction placed upon us by virtue of primary legislation.

In the first three elections to the National Assembly, when the names were on the ballot paper, postal voters could also see the names and see who they were electing. In those early elections there was the possibility of candidates being on both ballot papers at the same time—a position which will be re-established under the clause we are debating. That meant, of course, that people could see the read-across from both ballot papers and make their decision accordingly. In other words, if the same names were on both ballot papers, that provided more information to the voter. Taking the names off, of course, meant that the postal voters could not see the names of anyone and would not have a clue who they were electing, which is a fundamental process in our elections, as it is for the European elections in Wales, where we do see the names of candidates on the ballot paper.

In conclusion, I would like to ascertain what progress has been made, try to establish the political parties’ views on this and ask my noble friend what progress we can now make to bring back the names on the ballot paper, especially in relation to the other parts of Clause 2 which are so relevant to this amendment.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord German

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I hope that this amendment will be quite straightforward. I hope to make the case that this Bill is the right Bill at the right time for dealing with this matter, as I will explain.

The amendment is straightforward because it seeks to put the names of the candidates back on the regional ballot paper. This situation existed for all National Assembly elections until the last one. I want to go back to the days when I remember the ballot paper saying—noble Lords who were around at the time will remember it, too—Welsh Labour Party: number 1, Rhodri Morgan; number 2, Sue Essex; number 3, Jane Hutt. That seemed to send quite a clear message to send to people who wanted to vote Labour. If they put their mark alongside, they were voting for those people in that order. This would also return us to what goes on in European elections, where the names of the candidates for whom you are voting appear on the ballot paper.

To understand why this amendment is the right amendment at the right time, now, we must try to find out why the names were removed in 2011. I have before me the reply to a letter that I wrote to the Electoral Commission prior to the 2011 National Assembly for Wales elections, and which I received before those elections took place. It outlines the reason why it recommended the names be taken off.

It states:

“After the Assembly elections in 2007, our published election report identified that a number of complaints had been raised by voters about the size of the regional list ballot paper. Voters found it difficult to complete in polling booths and to fold and put into ballot boxes. The ballot paper size was also problematic for printing and counting”.

The commission’s recommendation to resolve this issue was to reduce the number of candidates eligible to stand on the regional list. The letter stated that each party was still able to nominate up to 12 candidates, even though since 2007 candidates had been prohibited from standing for both the regional list and the constituency election.

As we all know, four candidates are elected in each region. The Electoral Commission stated:

“In our view, it would be sufficient that each party could nominate up to six candidates for the regional list. Three of the main political parties in Wales supported our recommendation to reduce the number of candidates nominated, but the other main party did not. The change would also require”—

this is the crucial part—

“amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006, for which there was no apparent legislative opportunity at the time”.

I do not know whether it was my party that did not say yes to reducing the number to six. Certainly, nobody asked me about this issue at the time. However, the important consequence was that, as it did not have the time to change the primary legislation and did not have the agreement of the parties, the Electoral Commission decided to follow the alternative route of simply taking off the names of people standing on the regional list for each party.

As many Members of your Lordships’ House will know, on the regional list ballot paper there are not just parties but independent candidates, so part of the reason for the growth of the ballot paper was not just the number of names against parties but the independent candidates—usually only one name. The restriction on ballot papers by the Electoral Commission and by regulations on the size of the fonts and of the ballot papers passed by your Lordships’ House made it impossible for any other change to take place because the Electoral Commission had run out of time.

The letter also states:

“We shall assess the outcome of the change in our statutory report on the election, based on feedback we receive from parties and returning officers”.

There was feedback post the election. I have described the situation that led the Electoral Commission to recommend that change. In its report on what happened afterwards it stated:

“Early on polling day”—

it is almost like the story of the man with the bricks and the ladder—

“there were complaints that regional candidates’ names were not displayed or were displayed inadequately by some Returning Officers”.

There was a rule that you had to put them up somewhere in the polling station. As noble Lords know, many polling stations are in schools, where children’s work is often on the walls and the space where you can put up a list of names may not be apparent. It was certainly not alongside the polling booth or in the polling booth itself but could be anywhere. I went to a polling station where the list was on a steel box. They could not put drawing pins in it, so they had to use tape. The only tape they could find obliterated half the words. They put the list on the outside wall of the property, so people went in and it was then too late to see the names. The Electoral Commission goes on:

“There were also a small number of complaints from postal voters that they did not have access to the names of regional list candidates other than by consulting notices in public places or local authority websites”.

So people who voted by post had no knowledge of the names of the candidates and people in polling stations had no idea where to find the names. You had to be pretty good at hunting around in the polling station to find the names.

The Electoral Commission states:

“We conclude that, following the experience at the elections, the question of whether candidates’ names are included on the regional list ballot paper should be reconsidered. However, before certain relevant matters are resolved … it would be premature to make decisions on the regional ballot paper. We will revisit this issue no later than December 2014”.

That is two months from now.

I ask noble Lords to consider whether that needs to be done slightly faster. The commission gave its report after the 2011 elections and we have waited a further three years for an answer to this question. Because there was no legislative time available last time, it meant that that change could not be made to reduce the number.

The obvious answer is to reduce the number of names on the ballot paper to six, which was the Electoral Commission’s recommendation. I am not actually wedded to six, but it seems a reasonable number, because there are only four places available. Even if a party won all four places, there would still be two left in case the first two fell under a bus halfway through the election period. It is unlikely that, during an election campaign, four candidates would die and no people would be left to fill up the names on the list. We have to make that change according to the number of spaces that there would be on a ballot paper, to make it less unwieldy. That is the only argument that I have heard, as explained by the Electoral Commission, for making the change and removing the names.

It is a fundamental right of people, when they place their mark on a ballot paper, to know the names of the people for whom they are voting. These are the people who will represent them on an equal status. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has said to us on many occasions that those who are elected by the regional list system are of equal status to those who are elected from the constituency. Therefore, it is important that people should know the names of those for whom they are voting and the order in which they are elected.

It is not our favourite system; in our party, we would not want to say that. But we are approaching the time when the chance to make this change is fast running out. If there is to be a change to primary legislation and, following that change to primary legislation, secondary legislation has to come to provide the appropriate rules for the election in 2016, it would require a piece of primary legislation to be placed before Parliament in the first four months of a new Government. I know that many noble Lords will think that for this very purpose that is not a very likely procedure. This Bill is the right one in which to make that simple change to the line that appeared in the Government of Wales Act 1998 as well as the 2006 Act:

“The list must not include more than twelve persons (but may include only one)”.

[Lord Wigley]

I am following the noble Lord’s argument with a lot of interest and considerable sympathy, but would he and his party not go one stage further by having an open list and allowing electors to determine the order in which people fill those slots?

[Lord German]

I would indeed. As I say, this is such an urgent matter to change and to change the electoral system to make that happen might be a step too far. I might be told, in exactly the same way as the noble Lord has been told many times this afternoon, that this is not the right time or place or Bill. But because there is only one chance to do this, this Bill is the right place and it is the right time. I hope that my noble friend and the rest of the Government will see the wisdom of this action and give people the right to see who they are voting for on their ballot paper.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord German

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord German]

I do not know whether this is the right place in the debate in which to do it because it is the first time that I have had the opportunity, but I want to place on record our thanks to the Bill team and my noble friend the Minister for the way in which they have handled the Bill all the way through. The way in which access to civil servants has been granted and the openness with which the Minister has provided information has been a revelation. I am most grateful, as I am sure are my colleagues on these Benches.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, since this opportunity is being taken to say thank you, perhaps I may from our Benches—I am sure that others will want to do likewise—thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for the courteous and happy way in which they have handled the Bill. The Minister has always had a smile on his face despite the fact that there have been occasions when I am sure he felt otherwise. He has always been eager and helpful in responding to inquiries. There is a danger that he will become known in the House as “the latter-day Lord Newton”; in other words, the person who the disability lobby knows is really on its side but whose hands are sometimes tied. There can be worse tributes than that. We are very grateful for all the time and consideration that he has given during the past few weeks.