Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hart and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is able to endorse what I am about to say because, of course, that is exactly what these funds do. For the first time, 22 local authorities in Wales and other stakeholders are having a say in devolution. The Welsh Government do not have a monopoly of wisdom any more than the UK Government do, and we are taking devolution to its dictionary definition. He will probably know this but, under the UK community renewal fund, Labour areas got 44% of the funding, Plaid Cymru areas got 24%, independent areas got 17% and Conservative areas were fourth at 15%.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Let us be clear that independent estimates tell us that, over the next five years, the difference between what the devolved Administrations would have got through structural funds and what they will get through the shared prosperity fund is £4 billion. Will the Secretary of State stop promulgating this myth, this deception, that there will be no difference as a result of leaving the EU and admit that this is just another Brexit broken promise?

[Simon Hart]

We are hearing a Brexit broken record, to be honest. The settlement for Wales has gone from £15.9 billion to £18 billion, plus £120 million from the levelling-up fund, plus £47 million from the community renewal fund, plus the community ownership fund, plus more than £300 million-worth of EU tail-off funds, plus £337 million of agriculture funding. It is impossible to come to any conclusion other than that this has been a fantastic settlement for Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hart and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. There have been numerous engagements in person with the Business Secretary and others, and online engagements, and I can safely assure the House that those who have responded have not expressed any great concerns about UKIM. In fact, they see it as a perfectly natural successor to the existing status quo. They want us to proceed with it, they consider it to be fair, and more importantly they think that jobs depend on it.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Ministers seem to be in a state of denial about what this internal market Bill actually says. It is quite clear that it will give the power to the UK Government to make spending decisions in Wales on matters that are devolved to the Welsh Parliament. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how on earth that respects the devolution settlement?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman illustrates my point. It seems that in certain nationalist quarters this is all about politics and power, whereas in fact it is all about jobs and the economy and people grafting their way into a post-covid world. The Welsh Government will not lose a single power—not one—after the Bill is passed; in fact they will have 70 new ones. The fact that the UK Government will be there as well to contribute to the economy of Wales in a way they have not been able to for 45 years should be welcomed by him and his colleagues in Wales as a major step forward.

House of Lords: Abolition

Debate between Simon Hart and Tommy Sheppard

Monday 18th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I came here with no intention of making a speech, but I was reminded by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) of those days back in 2011 and 2012 when the coalition was in office and House of Lords reform was debated in the main Chamber in Government time. It was frustrating that there were numerous reforms with which we all agreed and would have proceeded had our partners in the coalition not been so wedded at the time to the concept of an elected second Chamber that nothing else mattered. The entire reform programme fell pretty well as a result of that intransigence.

I was amused, as I always am, by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I agreed with some elements but not with others. I took it—I hope I am not misquoting him—that he gave a pre-refusal should he be offered the honour of a place in the House of Lords when his long, illustrious political career in the Commons comes to an end. He can always intervene and tell me if I am wrong, but if that is the case, it is one less to worry about.

As I mentioned in an intervention, this debate is about the primacy of the House of Commons. All those years ago those measures fell because we could not find a way around the fact that, if we wanted the Commons to be a proper representation of public opinion and public feeling and not to be compromised, it had to have primacy. This is an argument not against House of Lords reform, but against having elected elements in it, and particularly some of the crazy schemes for two seven-year terms or whatever. The moment there is any suggestion of an elected element to the upper House, the Commons would suffer as a consequence.

It seemed we could not get around the idea that we were considering not abolition or reform of the House of Lords but wholesale constitutional reform of Parliament, and of the Commons in particular. It struck me then, and it strikes me now, that if as a result of the mood of the electorate we had a substantial Government majority in the Commons matched in the House of Lords, checks and balances would be significantly reduced, and the ability of the Lords to review, improve and scrutinise legislation—sometimes aggressively—would be somewhat reduced.

We should not be too pompous about some of the arguments we are getting from the House of Lords at the moment. It is important that the Government’s position on Brexit is challenged, however uncomfortable that might be. It is a little early to write off the House of Lords—in my view it is an anachronism worthy of abolition—before the process has ended.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman is basically saying there would be a problem with which House would be the most legitimate at any given point if both were elected. Will he speculate on why so many countries across the world manage to have a bicameral structure with two elected houses without that problem arising? If he thinks that problem is fundamental to the structure of Parliament, should we not first exhaust the possibility of a unicameral legislature before deciding whether and what type of revising Chamber we might wish to have?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is not about dismissing other potential reforms. I am simply making observations about why, back in 2011 and 2012, when we had the opportunity and momentum and there was spirit behind the proposals, they failed. They failed because they spooked Members of the House of Commons, who thought their primacy was in danger of being compromised. Unsurprisingly, they also spooked Members of the House of Lords, who felt that they would have to face the vulgarity of an election from time to time. We have to be pragmatic, and my point is about pragmatism. If we want to proceed, it is no good quoting what may be the case in other countries, however bona fide their examples may be; we must get the proposals through both Houses of Parliament. I am interested in exploring ways in which we can legitimately do that and make progress.

The other point I would make in response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is that if we can dip our toe in the reforming water and find that it is actually okay, other reforms will follow. Part of the situation is a fear of anything different. I suspect that if we can make the process evolutionary rather than revolutionary, many of the reforms we have talked about that have so far apparently been impossible will become a little easier. I am not attempting to dismiss the hon. Gentleman’s comments. They are legitimate, but we must look at them in the context of the history of numerous attempts in the past 10 or 20 years to address the problem, most of which have been unsuccessful so far.

As I was attempting to explain, the Brexit situation stimulated interest in House of Lords reform. I have no particular fear of the Lords making uncomfortable observations about the direction in which the Government are going, but I would take a different view if it became obvious that the Lords’ intention was to frustrate the will of the elected Chamber. Those two things are different and we are not there yet. We might be there in a matter of days, but we are not there yet, and therefore we are unable to pass or should be cautious about passing sentence today.

The hon. Member for Stroud hinted at reforms that could bring about progress. I am entirely sympathetic to a reduction in numbers—not so much for the Commons, in case the Minister is listening, but for the House of Lords. I completely understand that. He also mentioned expertise. I agree with pretty well all of his contribution, although I suspect that if we went down a different route it might cost money rather than saving it. The positions might have to be salaried if an appointments panel simply advertises vacancies and selects people—if we create a second Chamber that is properly diverse and representative, it could come at a salaried price.

Thirdly, there may be opportunities to look again at the Parliament Act 1949. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who opened the debate, pointed out, that has its drawbacks because it was created at a time when the present circumstances were not anticipated. Perhaps revisiting it with a view to ensuring that the Commons can get its way in a rather more timely fashion might be one way in which to start making sensible progress. We need a pragmatic approach to reform. Otherwise we shall find, as we often have so frustratingly in the past, that no progress can be made because someone somewhere will lose out. If we continue to make proposals that are not politically digestible, we will have this debate again in a few years’ time.