Wales Bill

Debate between Owen Smith and Jonathan Evans

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Evans]

The hon. Gentleman should be a bit cautious in his dismissal of the Conservative party, given this week’s opinion polls. His argument is the complete antithesis of the position adopted by the Labour party in Scotland—late in the day, it must be said—which is to agree to the devolution of all tax raising powers to Scotland. Against that background, how is his argument in any way consistent with the position adopted north of the border?

[Owen Smith]

To paraphrase the infamous, notorious entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is not a question of “For Wales, see England”, “For Scotland, see Wales”, or “For Wales, see Scotland”. We have different countries with different demographics, histories and relative tax takes, and on behalf of the Welsh people, we should sensibly take a position that reflects their best interest, rather than talking an ideological perspective across the board. On the prospects of the Tory party in Wales, I would be a little more hopeful that it might do well were it not for those such as the hon. Gentleman not fighting their seats at the next election. We can read into that what we will.

[Jonathan Evans]

It is the same as the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain)

[Owen Smith]

Indeed, but I do not suggest for a minute that there is any prospect of my right hon. Friend being replaced by a Tory. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. [Interruption.] It will be a cold day in hell before Neath turns Tory, and ditto Pontypridd.

Let me return to my point about whether Wales will be better off with these tax powers. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we can look to last week’s autumn statement to demonstrate that Welsh tax receipts are now £2 billion less than what was planned by the Chancellor in 2010. That is our proportion of the £66 billion shortfall in tax receipts that is a result of our underperforming economy under this Conservative Government. Had these measures applied in 2010, they would have devolved to Wales about £1 billion of that shortfall. That decline makes a mockery of the notion that such powers make the Welsh Government more accountable, because a poor performance across the board by the UK economy would not have been down to the actions of the Welsh Government. That performance would have been wholly down to a Tory Government in Westminster, and there is little that a smaller economy and country such as Wales could have done to mitigate that effect.

The other thing that those numbers illustrate—again, the hon. Member for East Antrim effectively made this point—concerns the volatility of tax receipts across the UK. That volatility has led to a £66 billion shortfall, and traditionally there are greater fluctuations in peripheral and regional parts of the UK economy than at the centre, and especially in London and the south-east. It is difficult to imagine how a country such as Wales with a small economy could manage the risk associated with that greater volatility. That shows some of the benefit of our being part of a wider Union, and it makes clear the dangers and risks associated with disaggregating that Union.

Government Policies (Wales)

Debate between Owen Smith and Jonathan Evans

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

We would have done, as my hon. Friend knows—he promotes me unduly and unfairly—and perhaps we should have done, but we are always fair-minded and therefore did not do so. However, I think we are convinced that what we did do was afford Wales some extra protection against the ravages of a Tory Government, about which we are about to hear more.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I just want to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to correct his statement that the Labour party had campaigned for devolution in Wales for 100 years. I know that he is a great admirer of Aneurin Bevan. I come from the same town as Aneurin Bevan, and I am sure that he did not campaign for devolution.

[Owen Smith]

I hate to say it, but the hon. Gentleman really ought to study his history a little harder, because Kier Hardie, even when elected in 1895—not as a Welsh MP, but in West Ham—spoke in this House about devolution, and when elected to Merthyr as a Labour MP in 1905 he was absolutely a campaigner for home rule and devolution for Wales. The hon. Gentleman’s history is wrong; mine is perfectly accurate.

Recent history—the past four and a half years—shows that the Labour party is still campaigning for rights for Welsh people and standing up for Welsh Labour valleys. Thus we have seen Jobs Growth Wales, the most effective youth employment programme anywhere in Britain, 1,000 jobs created only last week, and massive increases in inward investment, all positives that have come as a result of devolution and the protection of the Welsh people.

Wales Bill

Debate between Owen Smith and Jonathan Evans

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

The clear principle to which we are responding with these amendments was outlined by the Welsh Government in their response to the Green Paper produced two years ago. For the information of the Committee, that stated that

“no change to the Assembly’s current electoral arrangements should be made without the Assembly’s consent. This is the fundamental constitutional principle in issue. It is a necessary consequence of a constitution based upon the principle of devolution.”

That is a clear expression from the Welsh Government on the centrality of their view in any changes to legislation which affect the elections to their Chamber—to the Assembly in Wales. That is something we wish to explore today with the Government.

Clearly, the Bill arises from the shift to a five-year fixed-term Parliament for this place. Three separate pieces of legislation needed to be amended as a consequence—the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, and now the Government of Wales Act 1998. Labour is not opposed to fixed-term Parliaments, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) will recall. In previous manifestos, including the last manifesto, Labour has consistently pledged to shift to fixed-term Parliaments, but we have consistently said that a five-year fixed term for any institution was too long.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone with which he started his speech. Will he explain the rationale for his sticking with a Thursday? Since he is aiming to give responsibility to the National Assembly and to let it decide the issue entirely, why does he say that the poll should be held on a Thursday? He will be aware of a growing body of opinion among those who undertake electoral research, who look to examples on the continent, where elections are held at weekends—traditionally on Sundays—or opportunities when people may be able to participate more in the electoral process. Perhaps he can help us to understand why, since he is putting the proposition that it is entirely a matter for the National Assembly, he has restricted polling day to a Thursday.

[Owen Smith]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I had not spotted that you had arrived, for which I apologise.

The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that this is, of course, the custom, practice and protocol in British elections for all institutions. I hear what he says about the interesting debate about whether, in an era of great cynicism towards and disinterest in and disengagement from politics, we ought to expand people’s opportunities to vote. Labour Members are looking seriously at that and have already suggested that it ought to be looked at, but for the purposes of this Bill and the principle under discussion, as opposed to the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, it seemed simpler to stick to the customary practice of a Thursday. That is why we did not suggest a change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I understood the point that the hon. Gentleman was making: I was merely pointing out the significant concerns in New Zealand that remain.

[Jonathan Evans]

The hon. Gentleman has shared with us the research that he has done on the position in New Brunswick. In neighbouring Quebec they had the same debate and came to the same conclusion as the Secretary of State.

[Owen Smith]

That is as may be. I merely say once more that this is not a straightforward, open-and-shut case, as it has been presented by the Government. We know otherwise—from the evidence of Clwyd West and other seats in Wales, from public opinion and, frankly, from what our constituents tell us about their dissatisfaction, which extends to the broader issue of the list and first-past-the-post system. We know that the public do not understand candidates being rejected under first past the post and then sneaking into the Assembly by the back door.

Wales Bill

Debate between Owen Smith and Jonathan Evans

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

This is an important debate and an important Bill. There are four broad issues under discussion. The Secretary of State has described some of them—some in more detail than others. I shall explain to the House why he glossed over some of them. The four areas I want to discuss are the electoral arrangements, the devolution of the minor taxes, the borrowing powers—the amount of borrowing in particular—and the devolution of income tax varying powers for Wales.

Let me start with electoral arrangements, which the Secretary of State glossed over in just a few phrases. The reason for that will become clear. The changes in the Bill include a reversal of the Government of Wales Act 2006 ban on candidates standing both under first past the post and on the proportional representation list in Wales. The reason that the previous Labour Government decided to introduce that ban ought to be well understood by the Secretary of State, as it stemmed from a Tammany hall-style example of an election that took place in his constituency of Clwyd West in 2003. On that occasion, the winning Labour candidate was elected on first past the post, while the losing Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Plaid Cymru candidates were also all elected, by the back door and on the back list—Tammany hall in Clwyd West. The system was designed by an earlier Labour Government, but we decided that it was clearly at odds with democracy in Wales. We decided that the people of Wales would not understand how losers could become winners.

[Jonathan Evans]

How can the hon. Gentleman say that that was by the back door? In essence, he is saying that those people who serve on regional lists are lesser Members of the Assembly than constituency members under a system that his Government introduced.

[Owen Smith]

No, I was not saying that for a moment. I was saying that I thought that the people of Wales looked askance at losers standing on two separate tickets— first past the post and on the list—to get themselves elected. We have seen why the Opposition oppose that; we believe in democracy and we believe in democracy being seen to be done. We also know why the Government want to reintroduce it in Wales and to allow people to stand both under first past the post and on the list. That reason is captured clearly in the explanatory notes to the Bill, which say explicitly that the measure will benefit smaller parties with a smaller pool of candidates—that is, the Tory party in Wales.

Elections (National Assembly for Wales)

Debate between Owen Smith and Jonathan Evans

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) on securing this useful and important debate. It is a profound matter of regret to me, and to my right hon. Friend, that the Secretary of State is not here to listen to the arguments on both sides, not least because the Minister’s comments, and their further underlining of the clear disagreement between the Prime Minister and the First Minister, are a matter of the utmost seriousness. The word of either the Prime Minister or the First Minister is being called into question, and as the Secretary of State is at the heart of that unfortunate disagreement, it ill behoves her not to engage in the debate today.

It is no surprise, however, that the Secretary of State is not here, because that is in keeping with the ham-fisted, high-handed manner in which she has dealt with the matter over recent weeks. She has accused me of playing games. I put it to her that we are not playing games but merely articulating the views of Opposition Members and, I suggest, the National Assembly, which are already on record. This is a matter of profound significance to the National Assembly and the people of Wales. I ask whether there is any other Welsh issue of this significance being debated in the House this morning. I did not see anything on the Order Paper that should be detaining the Secretary of State. I certainly felt that my attendance here was important enough to warrant my sending my apologies to the shadow Cabinet, which meets as we speak.

I want to make something clear about the debate that we did not have this week. I wrote to the Secretary of State several weeks ago, telling her that I thought this such an important issue that it ought to be debated on the Floor of the House. She did not have the courtesy to write back with her opinion but merely tabled, through the usual channels, a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. That was why we objected to the debate; it was nothing to do with the timing, but because we felt it ill-considered and ill-judged to debate something of this significance in Committee, and not to expose a constitutional matter to wider discussion.

This is a high-handed and ham-fisted way of going about things. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen made clear in his eloquent remarks, the Green Paper is highly partisan. It represents a barely veiled political agenda of increasing representation for minority parties in Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, that agenda is, incredibly enough, there in black and white in the Green Paper. I include among those minority parties the Welsh Tory party and Plaid Cymru, a party that, extraordinarily, is not represented in this debate about the National Assembly for Wales.

[Jonathan Evans]

Does the fact that the Labour party got 43% of the vote in the Assembly elections not make it a minority party?

[Owen Smith]

No, it very clearly does not. The Labour party is here today speaking for Wales, and it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman sought earlier to misrepresent the options in the Green Paper. He suggested that on the table was one option of keeping the status quo, and he knows that that is not straightforwardly true. The option is to keep 40-20, but to shift to a more equalised block of constituencies by changing all the constituencies across Wales, with none of the benefits of retaining coterminosity with the parliamentary boundaries. Even that minor change is so significant that the consent of the National Assembly for Wales, as proxy for the people of Wales, ought to be sought.

The Green Paper is partisan, and also arrogant, in that it completely eschews the tradition of seeking consensus on issues such as constitutional change. When in office, the Labour party sought change through cross-party consensus, including when we proposed changes to the National Assembly for Wales in election manifestos. Amusingly enough, even the Tory party is split on this issue, with the party in Westminster taking one position in documents, and the party in Wales, which is perhaps more in touch with the people of Wales, taking an alternative one.

This is essentially an anti-devolution Green Paper, at odds with the spirit, if not the law, of devolution, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said. How else can we describe a proposal from a Westminster-based, Tory-led Government for changes to both constituencies and elections to the National Assembly for Wales—a proposal that does not require the consent of the Assembly or the people of Wales? The proposal lacks even a modicum of a mandate, and thus lacks legitimacy, and it should be called out for what it is.

The two options are clear. One is to keep the 40-20 split but change the nature of the boundaries. That has all the disbenefits of reorganisation and none of the benefits of retaining coterminosity. That is why, of course, the Secretary of State is not minded to take the option forward. It is a red herring, designed to deceive. The second option is to shift to 30 on a list and 30 first past the post, increasing the number of Members elected via proportional representation, and decreasing the number directly elected by 10.

No one is suggesting that the nature of the National Assembly should be set in stone or fixed in aspic. Nobody is suggesting that no changes should be proposed and no reforms undertaken. Many people in Wales have lots of ideas—we have heard some suggestions today—about how the National Assembly could be reformed, but few of those people would have the temerity to propose imposing those changes on the National Assembly and the people of Wales without seeking their consent in any meaningful fashion. Fewer still would have the nerve to propose changes without any real evidence or impact assessment of how they will affect voting patterns or election turnout in Wales.

However, our absent Secretary of State proposes to do just that, giving effectively one option, the justification for which is cut and pasted from the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, with nothing to back up either that or the alternative except the threat that if the option she favours is not adopted, the other even more destructive and disruptive option will be adopted. So much for the respect agenda.

That is happening despite the fact that in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs last year, when I suggested that the Secretary of State had precisely such a plan in the back of her mind and warned her not to try to gerrymander the map in Wales, she told me that

“before anything goes forward to do with boundaries there would be a loud, long and large period of consultation”.

Consulting on a flimsy Green Paper for a few months over the summer, and treating the National Assembly as a consultee like any other individual or institutional consultee in Wales, while the Secretary of State for Wales refuses to submit to any meaningful scrutiny, does not constitute a loud, long or large consultation to my mind. It is certainly not appropriate to the changes proposed.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, consider the contrast between that and the attitude taken by this Tory Government when they sought to introduce changes to the nature of the voting arrangements for Parliament in Westminster. We had a three-month, significantly contested and well-resourced campaign, followed by a national referendum. I am not necessarily suggesting that that is comparable to the changes proposed in the Green Paper, nor am I necessarily suggesting, as some have done, that the changes necessitate a referendum. However, I put it to Members that at the very least, the consent of the National Assembly must be obtained as a proxy for that of the people of Wales if there is to be no referendum on the changes.

Consider, too, the changes mentioned in this debate in respect of the passage of the Scotland Act 2012. This Government explicitly accepted that the Scottish Parliament should have to consent to the views included in the Bill before it could become law in Scotland. Why does this Welsh Secretary, parachuted into Wales, not feel that a similar job should be done for Wales? Why does she treat the National Assembly for Wales with such disdain when her counterpart in Scotland treated the Scottish Parliament with such respect?

All that prompts the question: why these changes, and why now? Like others here, I cannot but conclude that it is about narrow party self-interest for smaller parties that will benefit from an increased proportion of Members in the National Assembly being elected by proportional representation. To proffer a piece of evidence in support of that contention, think back to 1999, when the Labour party was well supported by the people of Wales and did well at the elections, with the Tories winning just one seat by first past the post. What was the impact for them on the list? Eight seats were delivered. I suggest that a similar position might well come about, with similarly happy benefit for Conservative Members, if the proposals are adopted.

One cannot help thinking that the reason why Plaid Cymru is so quiet on the issue is that the party has cooked up a deal with the Conservative Secretary of State to accept the proposals, because it knows that they will benefit Plaid Cymru, too. The people of Wales will note Plaid Cymru Members’ absence from this debate and understand precisely what they are about.