Countering Russian Aggression and Tackling Illicit Finance

Debate between Wayne David and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I would like to make a little progress.

That package of sanctions will include measures to stop the Kremlin’s access to UK financial markets for sovereign debt, which means the Russian Government will be unable to access UK services to raise capital through the issuing and trading of sovereign debt. These measures will curtail the ability of the Russian state, and Russian companies, to raise funds on our markets, and will further isolate Russian banks’ ability to operate internationally. We will also introduce measures to limit Russia’s ability to trade internationally, and to degrade the development of its military industrial base for years to come. We will keep ratcheting up the pressure, targeting more banks, elites and companies that are of significance to the Kremlin.

[Jonathan Edwards]

rose—

[Wayne David]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Wayne David and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

What recent discussions he has had with (a) the Welsh Government and (b) Cabinet colleagues on the UK shared prosperity fund.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on the UK shared prosperity fund.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Wayne David and Jonathan Edwards

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

I agree exactly with the hon. Gentleman, but I would go further. My great fear is that Brexit will be used by the UK Government and by the Conservative party to derail and undermine devolution in its entirety.

In a similar manner to new clause 162, amendment 90 seeks clarity on laws repatriated from the EU.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree that what we need more than anything else at this moment is mutual respect of the devolution settlements and that we should do our best to achieve consensus wherever possible?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. The amendments tabled by the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Labour endeavour to achieve that, and it is a source of great regret tonight that they have been taken so badly by Government Members.

I do not usually make a habit of quoting the leader of the Conservatives in Wales, but in this instance he has made another fitting statement, and I will hold his party to account on it. He said in an LBC interview last month:

“No, this won’t be the last Wales Bill…. Brexit will require devolution changes to realign those responsibilities.”

There we have it. A devolution settlement meant to last a generation, and which received Royal Assent only last week, is already redundant.

I finish by reiterating that on 23 June nobody voted to lose their job or to become poorer. My colleagues and I will be doing everything possible to avoid that and to ensure that the interests of the people of Wales are protected.

Wales Bill

Debate between Wayne David and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

I appreciate that intervention, and the National Assembly has, of course, legislated on that basis through the organ donation Bill, whereby donating has become a civic responsibility for people in Wales as opposed to a voluntary responsibility in which people had a choice. All these things will be part of the mix when these powers are devolved. I believe our politics will be far healthier for that. Luckily, these issues will be determined by people further up the chain of command in my party than myself—by those who sit in our own sovereign Parliament in Cardiff.

I look forward to a consensus developing around the need for a proportional electoral system. If we are talking about compulsory voting, it has to go hand in hand with a change to a more proportional electoral system. We cannot allow one party to gain 50% of the seats on the basis of 30% of the votes, as we saw last May. That is bad for democracy and it is a hugely corrupting influence on our politics. There is a chance here for Labour Members to show that they are genuinely interested in the national interest as opposed to the interests of the Labour party. I shall hold my breath on that one, as Labour colleagues seem to be more interested in compulsory voting than having a proportional electoral system.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in the interests of democracy and effective representation, a strong case can be made for maintaining the constituency link between a representative and his or her constituents?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I fear that we are getting into a debate about PR, and my party is strongly of the view that we need to go down that road. We will have to address these issues as we go along. The last election was a wake-up call where one party had 50% of the seats but only 30% of the votes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

In what sense would it make Wales poorer? I am more confused by the Labour position the more Labour Members intervene. The hypocrisy of Labour’s position does nothing to further the good name of politics. Most depressingly, it shows that both the Labour party and the Conservative party rejoice in treating the people of Wales as second-class citizens and Wales as a second-class nation.

[Wayne David]

Will the hon. Gentleman not accept the fundamental and basic point that unfortunately Wales is a far poorer country than Scotland and that the danger in what he is proposing is that he will make Wales poorer?

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is a damning indictment of the current situation. I have faith in my own people and my own country to be able to develop our own economy and create wealth. The big plus of devolving fiscal powers is that it would incentivise the Labour Government in Cardiff to stop spending money on their pet projects and start concentrating on increasing tax revenues to spend on public services. That is why I support the devolution of fiscal powers.

Welfare Reform (Welsh Valleys)

Debate between Wayne David and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David]

Yes. My hon. Friend touches on the central point of my speech. The welfare changes are having a detrimental effect not simply on individuals, but on the community as a whole, in a variety of different ways.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

On that theme, Sheffield Hallam university has just produced an important report on the welfare changes of the previous Labour Government and the coalition Government, indicating that more than £1 billion has been taken out of the Welsh economy as a result. The biggest single hit was the changes to incapacity benefit, which was a reform of his previous Labour Government.

[Wayne David]

The hon. Gentleman has led me on neatly to my next point and the central part of my contribution this afternoon. That is to talk not about the work of the previous Labour Government—yes, we began the process of welfare change, but we did it fairly—but about what we have seen since: a completely unfair introduction of welfare reform, or so-called welfare reform, that, more accurately, has been a way of making crude cuts affecting some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

As the hon. Gentleman said, however, an excellent report was published by the Industrial Communities Alliance in Wales. It was written by Christina Beatty and Steve Fothergill of the Centre For Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam university. The report sets out in well researched detail the scale of the Government’s cuts on one of the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom and quantifies in great detail the impact that those cuts are having on the economy of the south Wales valleys.

It is important to remember that not all the cuts have yet been implemented but, when they are, the valleys will lose around £430 million a year. That is an average of £650 per adult of working age. Those are massive figures, especially when we realise that the impact on the valleys is far greater than it is on virtually any other part of the United Kingdom. Without taking into account the household benefit cap and the bedroom tax, the overall financial loss for the United Kingdom as a whole is £475 per working-age adult—for the south-east of England, £370.

The contrast with the valleys is sharpest in parts of southern England outside London. In parts of Surrey, Berkshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, the financial loss per adult of working age is estimated to be little more than a third of the loss for the people living in the south Wales valleys. The Government’s welfare cuts are therefore accentuating the already huge differences between well off and poor areas, and are having a hugely negative impact on the local economy across the old south Wales coalfields from Torfaen to Ammanford.

If that were not bad enough, Beatty and Fothergill have dug down to ward level and shown that the financial loss per adult in the poorest parts of the valleys is truly horrific. By looking at official Government data, they have shown that in Maerdy in the Rhondda the overall financial loss per adult is £1,050 per year and in Pen-y-waun, near Aberdare, it is £1,040 per year. In my own constituency, the loss is £820 in Bargoed and £790 in St James. In St James, for example, which includes some relatively well off areas, the loss is greatest at sub-ward level, among some of the poorest people in Caerphilly. If that is true in my constituency, I am sure that it is also true elsewhere.

The huge loss of income has not only a hugely negative effect on the individuals and families concerned, but a massive effect on the local economy—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). Over time, Beatty and Fothergill estimate that some 3,000 jobs in consumer services can be expected to be lost as a result of the Government’s welfare policies. The Government’s argument, of course, is that reforming welfare in such a way is increasing the incentive for people to take up employment—I am sure we will hear that from the Minister—but the trouble is that in many parts of the valleys the local economy is incredibly weak and there is little sign of significant growth in quality job opportunities. What growth we do see tends to be in jobs that are part time, have zero-hour contracts attached to them and are very low paid.

There is another factor. Beatty and Fothergill have pointed out that the valleys have an archetypal “weak local economy” with a large pool of people who are unemployed. The consequence is that bringing into the labour market more people who have been on long-term disablement benefits does not necessarily lead to those people getting jobs. Men and women with health problems or disabilities, with few formal qualifications and little if any skilled work experience, and often in the latter phase of their working lives, are rarely employers’ first choice.

[Wayne David]

Yes, indeed, that is absolutely correct. My right hon. Friend makes her point well. To begin with, we have a larger proportion of people who suffer from disabilities than many other parts of the United Kingdom, because of the industrial past of the south Wales valleys. Such people are being especially hard hit by the Government’s policies.

Many of the people who are losing benefits are not securing employment—certainly not of the reasonably well paid variety. They are suffering a huge cut in their income levels and their standard of living. The report by Beatty and Fothergill points to the resources coming to the valleys from the European Union and compares those to the financial loss from welfare reform. We all know that as west Wales and the valleys were originally designated an objective 1 area, and then a convergence area, they received significant European regional development fund and European social fund moneys. From 2014 to 2020, we will see additional EU aid amounting to £1.6 billion. That funding will be worth around £120 million per year to the valleys, but, as I said earlier, the valleys’ loss through welfare reform is estimated at £430 million a year. In other words, the welfare cuts will remove almost four times as much money as the valleys receive in EU regional aid.

Let us not forget that the ongoing welfare cuts will be running in parallel with the harshest cuts in local government services that we have ever seen. Having been shielded by the Welsh Government until now, local government in the valleys is being forced to introduce unprecedented cuts in expenditure, which will inevitably hit hard those who rely most on local authority services: the sick, the disabled, women, the old, the young and the disadvantaged. Not only will services be hit, but we are likely to see jobs being lost and local economies suffering through the knock-on effects of the contraction of local government. Although the Beatty-Fothergill report does not examine what those cuts will mean, there is absolutely no doubt that they can only make a bad situation very much worse.

The Beatty-Fothergill report demonstrates that Wales is being hit harder by welfare reform than almost any other part of the United Kingdom, and that the valleys are being hit “exceptionally hard”. It concludes:

“The South Wales Valleys, long afflicted by the loss of jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing, have been the target of many regeneration efforts, some more successful than others. Welfare reform unequivocally works in the opposite direction: the poor will become poorer, and the poorest areas will fall further behind.”

Nothing highlights more clearly the need for a Labour Government in Westminster after next year’s general election. That Government need to pursue—I believe they will—policies that have at their heart the need to regenerate the economy of the south Wales valleys. We need policies that will provide well paid jobs, build on the excellent work of the Welsh Government’s jobs growth fund and harness creativity and drive so that entrepreneurship becomes the hallmark of the valleys.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I voted against the Welfare Reform Bill on Second Reading, and was proud to do so—reading the report, I feel vindicated. Will the hon. Gentleman outline which measures introduced by the current Government will be repealed by the next Labour Government, if there is one?

[Wayne David]

I am happy to say that top of our list will be the bedroom tax. We have made an unequivocal commitment to getting rid of that. Of course there will be welfare reform, but it will be genuine reform. The system needs to be modernised, but we will not place an undue burden on the poor and those who are least able to suffer cuts. Frankly, we will turn on its head a Government policy that is designed to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. We will have a Labour Government who will stand four-square behind ordinary people. Such a Government, armed with the policies that I outlined, will work in genuine partnership with the Welsh Government. I am confident that will happen and that a new and positive chapter will begin for the south Wales valleys.

Wales Bill

Debate between Wayne David and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance as we discuss this vital Bill, which will empower the Welsh Government with an element of fiscal responsibility for the first time. I would have hoped that all MPs representing Welsh constituencies were united in the view that one of our major roles as elected Members is to ensure that the Welsh economy is able to perform far better than it has in the recent past. Considering the incredible wealth inequalities that exist within the UK, with Welsh communities all too often at the bottom of the wealth league, I would have hoped that every political party was united in a mission to turn around the decades of neglect served upon Wales by successive UK Governments.

Far too many politicians in Wales rejoice at the underperformance of the Welsh economy, as it enables them to preach that Wales is far too poor, too small and too weak to succeed as an independent country. Their assertions are plainly ridiculous; Wales has all the ingredients to be a successful nation. We are a country that is rich in natural resources. Our people are highly talented, producing global leaders in science, academia, sport, culture and economics. The real question we should ask ourselves in Wales is: how do we find ourselves in such a predicament? Are we, as a people, content to languish at the bottom of every performance table and at the top of all poverty measurements?

If I was a unionist, I would be ashamed of the fact that gross value added per head in inner London is 12 times larger than that in west Wales and the valleys—the communities I represent. Westminster is not working for Wales, which is why my party believes that the potential of the people of Wales can be achieved only if our own democratic institution has the tools to move our country forward. History shows that changing the colour of the Government in Westminster will make no difference: the Westminster parties are all signed up to the same economic agenda that has failed Wales for far too long, and the people of Wales increasingly understand that. All polling indicates that they want the National Assembly empowered with more political responsibility. A poll by the Silk commission found that 64% believed that income tax should be devolved to the Welsh Government, so it is disappointing, to say the least, that the efforts of Plaid Cymru to improve and strengthen the Bill in Committee hit the infamous Westminster wall. In Committee, we endeavoured to preserve the integrity of the proposals of the Silk commission, which of course were the foundation for this Bill. Disappointingly, all the Westminster parties reneged on the cross-party agreement that had been made during the commission. The Bill undermines what was agreed in the Silk commission, cherry-picking from a comprehensive package. On more powers for Wales, the three Westminster parties are three peas in a pod, despite the protestations of their representatives in the National Assembly.

In Committee, Plaid Cymru put forward sensible and reasonable amendments that would have improved the Bill. Those included removing the damaging lockstep on the proposed income tax-sharing arrangement between the UK and Welsh Governments; inflation-proofing the borrowing powers included in the Bill; and empowering the Welsh Government to issue bonds and tax credits, as has been done in Scotland. We also tabled a series of constitutional amendments on matters as simple as enabling the National Assembly to determine its own name; to set its own number of elected Members; and to determine its own electoral system. Needless to say, none of the amendments was accepted by the UK Government and neither would Labour offer its support, preferring instead to table wrecking amendments that would further dilute the effectiveness of this Bill. I suspect that has something to do with the anti-devolution cabal currently ruling the roost in the Labour Westminster shadow Wales Office.

[Wayne David]

Can the hon. Gentleman answer this simple question: are he and his party in favour of tax competition and the race to the bottom among the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?

[Jonathan Edwards]

Enabling the Welsh Government with tax-raising powers would incentivise the Welsh Government to improve the Welsh economy. At the moment, they are a spending body, in essence; there is no incentive for them to improve the economy. That is why these fiscal powers are so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Is there not a contradiction between what the hon. Gentleman is now arguing for and his total support for the Silk recommendations? Surely he must choose one or the other.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. As I have said, we endeavoured to preserve Silk during the Committee stage, but our attempts were completely torpedoed by the Government and by Labour. We are therefore saying that we are going to go beyond Silk in the remaining stages of the Bill.

Even the Financial Times says that the UK should move to a fully federal constitution. As I said earlier, it stated in its editorial on Monday last week:

“A shift to far greater fiscal devolution north of the border would have to be mirrored across the rest of the union. It would require a whole new constitutional settlement whose purpose would be to create a more federalised Britain...First, Wales and Northern Ireland would need to gain similar powers to those in Scotland to raise, and vary, tax rates.”

Crucially, it ended by saying that

“the creation of a new constitutional settlement...is not something that can be left on hold”.

Last week we also learned not only that 55% of the peoples of the UK want greater fiscal and policy powers for Scotland, but that 54% want Wales to have those same greater freedoms, according to an ICM poll commissioned by the Evening Standard.

We are moving towards a far looser Union, and that is why this Wales Bill is a major missed opportunity. I have always said that the powers on offer in the Bill would be completely overtaken by events in Scotland and I have been vindicated, not least by the fact that there is an increasing likelihood of Scotland voting yes in September, thereby making the Bill look like a sticking plaster put over a burst dam.

All the Unionist parties are now falling over themselves to offer increased devolution in Scotland, despite having previously said that that should not be an option in the referendum. They must be kicking themselves that they did not include it as a third option on the ballot paper. Who will believe a word they say when they promise jam tomorrow? I would say, based on past evidence—and on what the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has said today—that the only way for the people of Scotland to guarantee more powers for Scotland is to vote for independence.

I would draw the people of Scotland’s attention to the Wales Bill. Here we have a Government who set up a cross-party commission to bring forward a consensus which carefully put together a fully endorsed package of reforms. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats then reneged on their word by cherry-picking and watering down the recommendations of the cross-party commission. They added restrictions and caveats further to render the powers unusable via mechanisms such as the lockstep. The UK Government’s attempt to strangle the cross-party Silk commission’s original recommendations by adding caveats, restrictions and locksteps should be a salutary reminder to the Scottish people of the sincerity of Westminster’s promises regarding further devolution. If the Wales Bill is anything to go by, the Government here will make a big headline-grabbing announcement promising more devolution, only to reveal a paltry offer when the surface is scratched away.

[Wayne David]

I take the hon. Gentleman back to his comments a moment ago, when he said he was supporting Silk. He is now saying that he is not supporting Silk. Is he behind Silk or not? Does he want to see those proposals taken much further? He cannot have his cake and eat it; he must decide one way or another.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that second attempt, but I think I answered his question when he first intervened on me.

It is interesting that Labour Front Benchers have only now tabled amendments to the Bill to give Wales control over 15% of income tax revenue gathered in Wales. That proposal is in amendment 10. Admittedly it is better than the 10% on offer in the Bill as it stands, but it is still meagre and shows a lack of ambition and vision for Wales. That is symptomatic of the Labour Government in Cardiff and their puppet-masters here in Westminster. Of course, 15% is better than 10% and we shall be supporting the amendment if it is pressed to a vote, especially as it does not include the lockstep-plus mechanism I referred to in Committee. However, it still reflects Labour’s lack of dynamism. Why only 15%? That figure seems to have been chosen simply because it is ever so slightly better than the Tory and Lib Dem offering.

I see that Labour’s other amendments are more concerned with delay, obfuscation and preserving its own positions than with trying to get the best deal for Wales and its economy. On the vote in Committee to remove the lockstep restriction, Labour abstained, despite the Labour First Minister and Finance Minister having said that it should be removed. Where is Labour’s consistency? Again Labour Members say one thing in Wales and do another at Westminster. They are now saying that Wales should have control over 15% of income tax revenue, yet their amendment says nothing about the removal of the lockstep.

When the Westminster Government announced in November last year that Wales would be getting new powers, they stated that the powers would make Wales an “equal partner” in the UK. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Secretary of State for Wales has previously argued that Wales must be given “equal respect with Scotland”, yet his actions run completely against that. His party is effectively offering Scotland full income tax devolution, yet he is maintaining the lockstep in the Bill for Wales and proposing that we should have control of only 10% of the income tax revenues raised in our country.

In conclusion, I want the same powers for Wales as the other nations of the British state either have or are being offered. If the main party of Government here at Westminster has full income tax devolution for Scotland as its party policy, why on earth should Wales not have those same powers? The changing context of the Scottish independence referendum debate vindicates what I have said all along—namely, that its rapid development will ensure that the powers on offer in the Bill will not be the settlement for a generation that the Government are suggesting.

The Welsh economy needs those powers now, never mind in three years’ time—the earliest point at which they would come on stream. Ultimately, the powers on offer in the Bill pale into insignificance in the context of how the constitution of the British state will alter in the coming years. That should be noted by this Government and all the parties, and we should begin with full devolution of income tax, so that the Welsh Government can determine their own bands and rates.

Wales Bill

Debate between Wayne David and Jonathan Edwards

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

Not necessarily, because an added scenario that Gerry Holtham did not take into account is the austerity package that has been put together by this Government, which has led to huge cuts in the Welsh Assembly Government’s budget. To begin with, those cuts have not kept up with inflation, but all the indications are that they will be significantly deeper. That is an important backdrop to the whole matter that we are tackling.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that there is a link between the Barnett formula and devolving financial powers, but that is the position that the Labour party has taken, and it is a roadblock. Will he confirm that at the next Westminster election Labour’s manifesto will include a commitment to review the Barnett formula, because last week his colleagues in Scotland were saying that they would rather die in the ditch before Barnett was reformed?

[Wayne David]

The Labour party had in its previous general election manifesto a commitment on modifying the Barnett formula, with the introduction of fair funding and a floor. That is currently Labour’s policy, and I have every confidence that it will be taken forward.

Given the possibility of a referendum on the income tax powers—although that is not very likely—it is rather disappointing that the Government have not learned lessons from previous experience of referendums across the UK, especially in Wales. The Electoral Commission has made the valid point that we need to learn one lesson, in particular, from the previous referendum on whether the Assembly should have law-making powers, when there was no coherent, registered no campaign and therefore there could not be a registered yes campaign. As a result, we did not have the kind of debate on the Assembly’s powers that we should have had, and that is partly why we had such a relatively low turnout. I am slightly concerned that the Government have not learned that lesson and have not reflected it in their legislative proposals.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Wayne David and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

It is high time that the House examined the issue of lobbying. Our motives should be guided by two main aims that we should use to judge the provisions in the Bill, in addition to the stated aim of transparency.

First, we must tackle the corrupting influence of big money and take it out of politics. I recently visited the United States on an exchange visit to Congress arranged by the British-American all-party group. I was amazed to learn that Congressmen spend a large amount of their time raising funds to fight the next election rather than legislating. As the old saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” We should be avoiding, at all costs, pursuing the US route, but sadly the costs of politics in the UK are increasing. Therefore, the key to ensuring that our politics is not dominated by vested interests is to reduce the costs of politics.

Secondly, legislation on lobbying, political campaigning and party funding should enhance the plurality of our politics, not undermine it. It is therefore a great shame that this Bill on lobbying fails to tackle the matter and would be virtually useless in dealing with any of the lobbying scandals of recent times—donations for dinners, cash for honours, cash for questions, and the ministerial “cab for hire” scandal of the previous Labour Administration. The key question is which one of these deplorable scandals would be stopped by the Bill.

I have a background in public affairs, having worked for Citizens Advice Cymru before entering this place. The main effort of lobbying is focused on the Executive—Ministers, civil servants and special advisers in the Government—and not on the legislature, whether Parliament or the National Assembly. After all, it is within the Executive that key decisions are made. There is a strong need to regulate lobbying of the Executive and to deal with aspects such as the revolving door whereby figures in Government—civil servants, SpAds and Ministers—go on to take up positions in companies that have benefited as a direct result of the decisions they made while in Government.

During the aforementioned visit to the States we had a meeting at the Pentagon, which was a very strange place for a Plaid Cymru politician to find himself. We learned that officials responsible for procurement or issuing contracts had to make an official annual declaration of their financial holdings for independent assessment, to ensure that their decisions were not being influenced by personal financial considerations. The civil service code in the UK does not make it a mandatory requirement for those in commissioning positions to publish such statements. If we are to have a cleaner politics Bill, surely that is the sort of measure we should be considering.

There is no need to rush through legislation as this Bill seeks to do. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is highly sensible. We must get agreement among all the political parties that operate within the British state, not have something partisan being pushed forward by the Government of the day. This Bill should be dropped and a special Committee of the House be convened to recommend rules on lobbying that should then be implemented. Anything partisan is bound to fail.

As others have noted, part 2 will impede the ability of third parties such as charities, think-tanks and other groups to campaign in the year prior to a Westminster election. I would like to highlight the potential for chaos among civil society groups operating in Wales and the negative impact on Welsh democracy. We live in a state of near-permanent elections—local, European and Westminster elections, and, of course, those for the devolved legislatures. Yet, again, we have a Westminster Government proposing legislation that does nothing to consider its impact on Wales.

My previous employer is an England and Wales body, and in that post I would have been responsible for simultaneous UK-wide and Welsh campaigns, which often crossed over each other. How can organisations possibly dissect what aspects of campaigning work come under the provisions of the Bill, and how can the Electoral Commission regulate campaigning activity?

The rules would be far more wide-ranging than reducing the annual expenditure. Regulations would cover a wide range of activities carried out for election purposes, such as controls on spending on events, media work, polling, transport, policy documents, discussing party policies, election material distributed to the public, and staff costs. The only things missing are staples and Blu Tack. Welsh democracy could suffer as a result, as charity and campaign groups may have their campaigning activities restricted all because of a Westminster election, while the same rules will not apply during an Assembly election year.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that part 2 applies not just to Westminster elections, but to elections for devolved institutions as well?

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. There has been little consultation in Wales, as reflected by the very strong correspondence we have received from bodies in our country.

Charities and campaign groups working in Wales could have their ability to interact with and make representations to the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales curtailed, which could affect the quality of legislation designed in Wales. Critically, plurality in Welsh political life could be undermined. We have a very weak civil society as it is and many of the bodies in Wales are UK-wide or England and Wales bodies.

A large bureaucratic job is being imposed on and expected from the Electoral Commission, and it is ironic that this is coming form the small-state Conservative party, with Lib Dem backing. The Electoral Commission did not call for the changes, nor was it consulted. What extra resources will it be given to achieve the new responsibilities that the Leader of the House is placing on it?

Finally, on part 3, I am the son of a former trade union shop steward so it will be of little surprise to the Leader of the House and the Government that I have concerns and consider the provisions to be a thinly veiled attempt to restrict and constrict trade unions and trade union activity. The British state already has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in the western world. Far from hindering trade union activity further, we should be incorporating the unions into the economy as Germany has historically done, with unions playing a key part in industrial strategy and workers’ representatives on company boards.

In conclusion, party funding is closely linked to the issues thrown up by the Bill. Plaid Cymru stresses the need for recognition that the politics of the British state is now undoubtedly a multi-party affair. Party funding rules should receive full consultation and agreement, and not be a stitch-up by the London parties. This Bill fails in the aim of removing big money from politics and undermines plurality. We will therefore vote against it this evening.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Wayne David and Jonathan Edwards

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

That is an excellent point. The presumption among many people—indeed, dare I say it, among most people—is that once a person is on the electoral register, they are there not for one or two elections but permanently. Most people in this country will not have a clue about this profound change in the nature of the electoral registration system. We need only to consider the lack of press interest and coverage on the subject for months to see that. Given that the Bill was one of the key pieces of legislation in the Queen’s Speech, there has been virtually no press coverage of it, and it is from the press that most people get their information. There is indeed a potential problem here.

We will discuss financing in greater detail later, but when the responsibility is placed very much on the shoulders of local authorities and electoral registration officers, and the resources that are likely to be allocated will not be ring-fenced and will be pretty small anyhow, the concern is that local authorities will not have the capacity to make the superhuman effort needed to chase up those people who they manage to detect have not re-registered under the new system, even though they are entitled to be on the register. There is a host of interconnected problems before us and I thank Members for their interventions. In their different ways, they have highlighted the complexities and the potential problems that lie ahead. The way forward for postal vote carry-overs was clearly set out by the all-party Select Committee, and I very much hope the Government will have second thoughts.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I shall speak briefly to amendment 20, which would increase the length of time that those on the current electoral register remained on the revised register after the introduction of individual electoral registration. The current proposal from the UK Government is that existing registrations will be removed at the end of the second new canvass if people have not provided the required data for individual electoral registration. The effect will be that concerns about a cliff-edge drop in the completeness of the registers, as we saw when they dropped by 11% in Northern Ireland, will be postponed until after the 2015 Westminster general election. This means that the first elections to be held without the roll-on from the pre-IER electoral roll will be the National Assembly for Wales elections in May 2016.

Although I recognise that one election must, at some point, be the first election to be held wholly under IER, I am concerned that the elections to the National Assembly for Wales will be the guinea pig, particularly because if the proposals in the Green Paper on electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales are implemented, the electoral roll arrangements will be used as the basis for determining constituencies. I shall give my opinion on that very interesting Green Paper on another occasion.

The change-over from the current system to IER is fraught with difficulties, and the length of time for the change-over should be as long as necessary to ensure that there are no adverse effects, and certainly should not be rushed. As I say, I am particularly concerned about the possible effects on the National Assembly elections in 2016, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity to push back the final date for the removal of all pre-IER registrations to ensure that the handover is as smooth as possible, without the cliff-edge drop in registration that we fear.