House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Hain Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 15th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

That is absolutely right. This Report stage is scheduled to finish at 1.30 pm. That is ample time to deal with any reasonable amendments that anyone might wish to put down. It is generous time—but I am losing track of my desire to get to my noble friend Lord Adonis’s amendment. It would provide that, when the next by-election takes place, which we know will be on 27 March, when there are 28 electors, as I pointed out, the vacancy would be filled by a vote of the whole of the electorate of the United Kingdom. I will say that again because I do not think it has quite sunk in; the electorate would be the whole electorate of the United Kingdom. I cannot tot that up off the top of my head, but the electorate is about 40 million, so I suggest gently to my noble friend, who is known for his hyperbole, that to substitute 40 million electors for 28 electors to elect a hereditary Peer is overdoing it, so I hope my noble friend will have enough sense not to press that amendment.

This is all serious as far as I am concerned, but there is a real test here, particularly for the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is this: they can decide to expedite these amendments, and move them if they must, to conclude this Report stage by 1.30 pm. The House would then be orderly, it would have given the Bill more than enough time—more than anyone could reasonably expect a Bill of this length to have given to it—or they will be in grave danger of bringing the whole proceedings of this House into serious disrepute if they do not withdraw the vast majority of the amendments.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask his advice on one point. Surely the Government should end this whole pursuit and provide time for the Bill to conclude during this Session and to be introduced in the Commons and then carried over into the next Session so that we can really make some progress and end this ridiculous farce that is bringing this House into terrible disrepute.

Brexit: Stability of the Union

Lord Hain Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Lisvane secured this debate; I referred to the Act of Union Bill and its parent, the Constitutional Reform Group, in my speech in your Lordships’ House on 13 December. But what is the case for the union now, which is under threat from Brexit in both Scotland and Northern Ireland?

The former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown set out a compelling vision in rejecting Scottish independence, both in a speech on 10 March 2014 and in his book My Scotland, Our Britain. He rightly insisted that the issue is not simply about patriotism: both pro and anti-independence Scots could claim to be equally patriotic. Instead, he argued, the incontrovertible advantage of modern Britain is its 20th-century innovation: the pooling and sharing of risks and resources across the whole of the United Kingdom to ensure common welfare and decent standards of life for all citizens, regardless of where you live, through common, UK-wide old-age pensions, common UK social insurance—sick pay, health insurance and unemployment insurance—common UK child and family benefits, a common UK minimum wage, and a UK system of equalising resources, so that everyone has the same political, social and economic rights, and not simply equal civil and political rights.

With around 40% of UK GDP concentrated in London and the south-east of England, separatists have no answer to the great benefit of the United Kingdom: redistributing resources from its better to its less well-off parts and, through a UK-wide minimum wage and tax credits, guaranteeing a minimum family income and stopping regions and nations undercutting each other, thus preventing a damaging race to the bottom between the nations and regions within the UK.

Although England remains highly centralised and the English question has not been properly addressed, as it should be, the 1973 Kilbrandon royal commission made a convincing case against a separate English parliament which has never been rebutted. Such a federation of four units would be,

“so unbalanced as to be unworkable. It would be dominated by the overwhelming political importance and wealth of England”,

with,

“Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together representing less than one fifth of the population”.

Instead, I believe in a modern federal United Kingdom, which is set out in the noble Lord’s Act of Union Bill. English interests could be better protected through regional devolution outside London—again, I suggested how that might be done in my speech on 13 December.

We should be wary of devolution in the form of “neoliberal outsourcing”, in line with the right’s ideological objective to shrink the Whitehall state, offloading as much responsibility as possible to individual citizens to fend for themselves, outsourcing to private providers and “subcontracting” tax and spending to devolved legislatures and cities. In that respect at least, the outcomes if not the ideologies of nationalism and neoliberalism can converge because, under both, the redistributive power of the United Kingdom state is either severed or severely stunted.

The great majority of individuals need the state on their side but not on their backs. They need active government which intervenes to curb market excess and market power. They need a social context to ownership. They need the assistance of strong communities. They need the solidarity which comes from acting collectively to exercise influence over the decisions which shape their lives and to experience the fulfilment of active citizenship. They need power to be decentralised and fairly distributed—which is precisely what the Act of Union Bill provides for. And much needed it will be in the current Brexit mess, not least to help hold our country together.

Constitutional Convention

Lord Hain Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for a remarkable parliamentary career. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I should reveal that, nearly 50 years ago, he was chair of the National League of Young Liberals and I was one of his very independently minded national officers, whom he had to control, mostly unsuccessfully—

[Lord Greaves]

I remind the noble Lord that he put out press releases in my name, which I had to forget about afterwards.

[Lord Hain]

That is what I meant, my Lords. I believe that, without wide-ranging constitutional reform, the very future of the United Kingdom is imperilled, not least by the strong possibility of Brexit triggering Scottish secession, and even Northern Irish secession through a referendum provided for under the Good Friday agreement.

One way to address this is through the new Act of Union Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, printed on 9 October and available in the Printed Paper Office. It offers the holistic approach advocated, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. As Members of your Lordships’ House may be aware, it is the product of discussions in the Constitution Reform Group, a cross-party group to reform the relationship between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, which was launched in 2015 and on which I sit.

Until now, the main pressure for reform has come from Labour, Liberals, Greens and radical constitutionalists. But the CRG was initiated by leading Conservatives and is chaired by the noble Marquess of Salisbury, the former Conservative Leader of your Lordships’ House. Also on the steering committee is the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, former Clerk of the Commons, former parliamentary counsel Daniel Greenberg, Paul Silk, former Clerk to the Welsh Assembly and before that himself a Commons clerk, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, representing the Liberal Democrats. Joined by me from Labour on the steering committee is Lisa Nandy MP, who is doing some very interesting work on towns and their alienation, both economic and political, in our current culture.

We have identified important areas for reform and have suggested different options. These include addressing the asymmetrical devolution that has left England with an understandable grievance—not just on the political right—as the most centralised and therefore disenfranchised part of the UK, London excepted. As has been said, the introduction of English votes for English laws procedures in the House of Commons is an unsatisfactory symptom of this.

I believe that England outside London should have a permissive form of devolution, enabling regional government or city regional government to evolve as desired. Given the opportunity, Cornwall and the north-east would almost certainly go for regional government right now, to be followed perhaps by others, maybe with Yorkshire leading the way. However, crucially, these bodies must have real power, not the Mickey Mouse powers offered in 2004, which were defeated in the north-east referendum in which I campaigned.

On the House of Lords, some on the steering committee suggest that it should be abolished and replaced by an elected English Parliament. However, representing 85% of the population, it would be so dominant that it would effectively replace the Commons as the fulcrum of Parliament, sidelining Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland even more and thereby promoting separatism. My own view is that a senate or House of Lords should be majority-elected on the same day as a general election, ideally by a list system of proportional representation on the same boundaries as apply to European elections. That would enable each of the nations and regions within the United Kingdom to be properly represented, helping bind us back together again in a way that both Houses of Parliament have palpably failed to do.

However, a new settlement must not be drawn up—still less imposed—from on high. There must be wide consultation, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes has argued, through a constitutional convention similar to the one that successfully preceded devolution in Scotland.

It is not simply Scottish antipathy, Northern Irish instability or English discontent that threaten the future of the United Kingdom; there is now a widespread sentiment across the great majority of our citizens that our democratic system no longer represents their interests.

The Act of Union Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, addresses the main issues at stake, from finance to security. Crucially, it proposes a bottom-up rather than the top-down arrangement that we have had until now. It turns the devolution settlement on its head by creating a new federal structure in which the constituent parts or nations voluntarily vest the sovereignty they choose at the centre—for example, for foreign, defence and security, taxation and pensions matters. Otherwise, every policy area remains with them.

Our society today is hugely polarised by bitter Brexit divisions, towns left behind as metropolitan cities forge ahead, with never-ending austerity and widening inequality. The new Act of Union Bill does not and cannot address all the issues breeding these serious divisions, but it is an important start, because the bell is otherwise tolling for the United Kingdom as it is now.

Bell Pottinger

Lord Hain Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hain]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take, if any, following the expulsion of Bell Pottinger from the Public Relations and Communications Association.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the behaviour of Bell Pottinger in South Africa has been completely unacceptable. We support the investigations conducted by the Public Relations and Communications Association and Herbert Smith Freehills and the stark conclusions of their report. I want to put it on record that at no stage were Her Majesty’s Government in any way involved in its work in South Africa.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I welcome that Answer but do the Government agree that, after running a pernicious and poisonously racist smear campaign in South Africa for the wealthy Gupta brothers, whom President Zuma has enabled to capture the state and bankroll his family and friends through corruption and cronyism, all Bell Pottinger’s work for British public bodies must be called in and reviewed? Since the respected former Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan has stated that the Guptas and Zumas have benefited from 6.8 billion rand of money laundering, can the Government investigate whether any British banks are involved and what action can be taken at a European level? Will the Minister agree to meet me about this?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for those questions. There are no contracts between the Government and Bell Pottinger. On the second point about money laundering, I have read the reports that I referred to in my original reply and there is no implication that there has been any money laundering or indeed any criminal activity. The company behaved unprofessionally and unethically. If the noble Lord has any evidence of money laundering, of course that should be investigated. We have some of the toughest money laundering regulations in the world, and earlier this year Deutsche Bank was fined £163 million for breaching those regulations. If there is any evidence of money laundering, of course we should look at it. I would not rule out at all a ministerial meeting with the noble Lord.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hain Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

What I in fact said was that the Bill when it emerges will reflect all the rights contained in the European convention, not the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act indeed reflects the convention. The way in which the convention has been interpreted is our quarrel with the Human Rights Act, not the contents of the convention itself.

We have seen claims brought by people who have themselves shown a flagrant disregard for the human rights of others. Even where claims are unsuccessful, the fact that they can be brought at all serves to undermine public confidence in the Act. So we will bring forward proposals for a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act. We want our Bill to protect fundamental human rights but also prevent their abuse and restore some common sense to the system. Our proposals will focus on the expansionist approach to human rights taken by the Strasbourg court. These are of course matters of great importance and there will be passionate views on different sides of the debate, but I hope that noble Lords will approach our proposals with open minds when they are brought forward for detailed consultation.

In that context, I was disappointed to read that Alistair Carmichael MP, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, said last week of the Bill of Rights:

“We will try to torpedo this plan in the Commons and Lords”.

First, we have not yet published our proposals, so it is a somewhat premature observation. Secondly, it is a clear manifesto commitment. Surely scrutiny, rather than destruction, is appropriate in the circumstances. Thirdly, if a torpedo is to be fired, the Liberal Democrat numbers mean that its arsenal is located here in Your Lordships’ House, the unelected House. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Marks, when he comes to wind up for his party, would reassure your Lordships that, however rigorous the scrutiny of our proposals might be, it will not amount to an attempt at wholesale destruction. The public who elected this Government surely deserve better than that.

I shall now address the Government’s priorities on matters of home affairs. First, I turn to the Investigatory Powers Bill, which will govern the use of those powers by law enforcement, the Armed Forces, security and intelligence agencies and other public authorities. The Bill responds to three independent reviews of investigatory powers, including the statutory review conducted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC. The two other independent reviews, conducted by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the panel convened by the Royal United Services Institute, have also been carefully considered.

Last autumn, a draft Bill was scrutinised by three parliamentary committees, which received a significant body of written evidence and heard from government and many other groups. The revised Bill, along with further explanatory material, reflected the majority of the recommendations of all the committees and reviews.

I reassure noble Lords that the Government appreciate that these powers, which have an impact on privacy, must be used with great sensitivity. Privacy is at the heart of this Bill, as it provides for greater protections and safeguards for existing powers and ensures that any misuse is punished. Powers are necessary to uphold the security that allows the public to enjoy that privacy. In the revised Bill we made privacy safeguards stronger and clearer, incorporating additional protections for journalists and statutory protections for lawyers. We have provided the time needed for a full parliamentary passage to ensure that Parliament gives the Bill the scrutiny that such an important piece of legislation deserves.

I am sure that noble Lords will agree that our pluralistic values make Britain a civilised country in which to live, but extremists with dangerous views try to undermine those values. We cannot tolerate this promotion of hatred and intolerance, which divides communities and sets people against each other. People in Britain today should never have to suffer hatred and violence because of their race, religion or sexuality; women should not be denied equal access to rights; and children should never be taught to despise the values that we all hold dear. We have delivered the counterextremism strategy to defeat all forms of extremism. As part of this strategy, we will bring forward new legislation to ensure that we are equipped to confront extremists and protect the public.

The gracious Speech also includes the Policing and Crime Bill, which will continue our reforms of the police. Since 2010, a radical programme of police reform has been under way. It has seen the introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners to ensure greater accountability and transparency in policing. I pause there to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach—not currently in his place—who was recently elected a PCC for Leicestershire. Although I am not sure that the party opposite wholly welcomes police and crime commissioners, it is good to see that they are joining in the system and embracing it fully.

The programme of reform has driven through efficiencies of £1.5 billion in cash terms. Crime has fallen by more than a quarter since 2010, with 2.9 million fewer crimes a year, according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales. The Bill will make the police more efficient and effective, enhance democratic accountability, build public confidence and ensure that the right balance is struck between the powers of the police and the rights of individuals. By providing police and crime commissioners with the ability to create more collaboration between police and fire services, the Bill also enables both emergency services to make significant savings in the delivery of their back-office functions.

The gracious Speech includes a Bill to introduce important changes to the way that this country tackles money laundering. This country has a robust anti-money laundering regime, but we must ensure that we can tackle the increasingly complex mechanisms used to launder illicit funds in order to allow our law enforcement agencies to identify and seize criminal assets. These changes will result in greater disruption of money laundering and activities that finance terrorism, as well as the prosecution of those responsible and the recovery of the proceeds of crime.

The gracious Speech sets out measures on how power is to be distributed across the UK and how decisions are taken. The Government are committed to establishing a secure settlement for the constitutional arrangements across our country—arrangements that provide the different nations of the United Kingdom with the space to pursue different domestic policies should they wish to do so, while protecting and preserving the benefits of being part of the bigger United Kingdom family of nations.

We said we would move quickly to implement the further devolution that all parties agreed for Wales and Scotland and deliver the Stormont House agreement in Northern Ireland. That is what we are doing. The Wales Bill would make the devolution settlement in Wales clearer by introducing a reserved powers model, like the system already in place for Scotland. The National Assembly for Wales will be able to legislate on any subject unless specifically reserved to Parliament. This Bill will also reflect the permanence of the Assembly and the Welsh Government in statute.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that in the definition of the reserved powers, significant changes have been made to the draft Wales Bill which was widely criticised for clawing back, in effect, many of the powers that had been de facto devolved already?

[Lord Faulks]

There have been significant changes.

The Bill would also remove the requirement in the Wales Act 2014 for a referendum before a proportion of income tax is devolved. As I said, the National Assembly will be able to legislate on any subject unless specifically reserved to Parliament. The Bill will also reflect the permanence of the Assembly and the Welsh Government in statute.

Your Lordships’ House has a vital role as the scrutinising and revising Chamber of Parliament and will discharge, I am sure, the role with its usual diligence. But this Government firmly believe that the elected House of Commons should have the final say on the laws that Parliament makes. That should be the case for all legislation, however it is made. Last year, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was asked to come forward with proposals to secure the decisive role of the House of Commons in the passage of secondary legislation. We are considering his recommendations carefully, alongside the recommendations of a number of committees of your Lordships’ House and the other place, and will respond in due course.

I know noble Lords will agree with me that there is a great deal in this important and highly topical legislation to consider. Much of the legislation has not yet been published. When it is, I feel confident that it will be carefully scrutinised. In the meantime, I much look forward to the debate today in your Lordships’ House, which I am sure will contribute greatly to the Government’s thinking. It is possible that the debate will not involve the forthcoming referendum, but I rather doubt it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hain]

My Lords, despite devolution elsewhere—going even further in the forthcoming Wales Bill—England remains one of the most centralised nations in Europe. English devolution has been addressed only half-heartedly; indeed, Chancellor Osborne’s city deals are more about offloading the costs of the state on to the locality than genuinely decentralising power. The Treasury’s main motive has been more to reduce central public expenditure than to empower local communities.

Nor has the drive for English votes for English laws been about devolving power. Rather, it has been about rearranging House of Commons procedures in a flawed, contradictory and messy way that does not really answer the important and legitimate “English question”. English identity should self-evidently be just as important as Welsh or Scottish identity, and we need to ensure that it is constitutionally recognised and respected, just as devolution has done for Wales and Scotland. Otherwise, the current rumblings of discontent, not just on the right but on the left of politics in England, could become an uproar fuelling English separatism at the expense of inclusive British pluralism. In the Constitution Reform Group—convened by the senior Conservative, the Marquess of Salisbury, but all-party and non-party in its membership—we are currently finalising details for a new Act of Union to be published in July. This will turn on its head the whole process of devolution to date, which has been top down—that is, powers and responsibilities have been devolved from the centre down to the nations of the UK.

Instead, we propose that the nations—and potentially the English regions, as well as London—should federate upwards, granting to the central UK state only those powers and responsibilities they wish. In that sense the UK would become a voluntary federal union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the latter of course subject to the Good Friday constitutional arrangements. It assumes that each constitutional unit of the United Kingdom—nations or regions—manages its own affairs and determines those matters, especially defence and foreign policy but also macroeconomics, taxation, borrowing, security, including energy security and social security, which are best arranged by a central government accountable to a federal parliament, unless any of these areas were sought by the devolved legislatures by mutual agreement.

I also favour radically reforming your Lordships’ House into a fully elected, or possibly 80% elected, senate that fairly represents the whole union, which it clearly does not do now—witness, for example, the gross underrepresentation of Peers from Wales, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes has pointed out.

However, there are several problems with replacing the House of Commons with an English parliament. First, England constitutes 84% of the UK population and 87% of UK GDP. It dwarfs the rest, and the English First Minister could end up being more significant than the Prime Minister in influence and certainly in resources. Secondly, leaving only England occupying that iconic House of Commons Chamber would undoubtedly act as a green light to separatism elsewhere.

Making an effective distinction between the governance of England and the governance of the United Kingdom would also free up the people of England to enjoy comparable and substantial powers of self-government on health, education, local government and other matters through a gradually developing system of self-determination for regions or city regions, such as London already has, with the definition of those regions to be voluntarily and democratically agreed. Such a modern Britain, as the former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown has argued, would no longer be viewed as an,

“all-powerful centralised unitary state”,

but as,

“a constitutional partnership of equals in what is in essence a voluntary multinational association”.

However, with city regions such as Manchester today finding favour, a mixed, more permissive structure of English devolution would in my submission be preferable. It is probable that the north-east, Cornwall and Yorkshire/Humberside would want to lead the way, and other regions or city regions would likely follow, as the alternative would be getting left behind, continuing to be ruled by Whitehall instead of claiming the opportunities of empowerment already enjoyed by the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish and Londoners.

With the exception of the north-east, all the English regions have significantly bigger economies and populations than Wales and, without exception, Northern Ireland. Devolution within England is therefore eminently feasible and should now be pursued as the best route to bringing government just as close to the English as it has become to the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish and Londoners, thereby, I trust, comprehensively answering the “English question” without jeopardising the union.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Hain Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I frequently disagree with the way the Welsh Government operate but I defend totally their right to do so under the devolution settlement. If anything is within their rights, it must be their relationship with their employees.

Since the Agricultural Wages (Wales) Bill judgment by the Supreme Court, which occurred when I was a Minister in the Wales Office, it has been clear that the Government would not win on the issue at stake in this part of the Bill. The Welsh devolution settlement was simply much broader than we had all assumed, and that applied to the Welsh Government as well as to the Government here in Westminster. The new Bill, which is in draft form but will be extensively rewritten and I very much hope will come back next year, will probably provide much more certainty. However, we are working with the situation we are in now, with all its uncertainties and faults.

I say to the Government today, from my party: I have added my name to the amendment because we believe that the Government were well overstepping the mark on this issue. The Government must treat devolution with respect and not grudgingly. I regret that the concessions here have been made at the last minute, when the Government have their back against the wall. They should have seen reason a long time ago. However, for all that, I am very grateful that the Government have conceded on this issue.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that on election manifestos it is quality, not quantity, of words that counts in the end. In supporting this amendment, I refer to the Members’ register, where I have declared an interest. I also remind the House, as did my noble friend Lady Morgan, that the Welsh Assembly, on a legislative consent Motion, voted against by 43 votes to 13—13 Conservatives—making very clear the Assembly’s view on the principle here. They were voting not so much on the detail of the matters that we have been discussing in this House on this Bill but on the principle of the Government’s seeking to override the devolution settlement under which devolved public services are devolved, as well as other services, such as agriculture.

That brings me to the question of the Supreme Court judgment in 2014, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred. That was very clear. Their Lordships made crystal clear their view that even though employment law was a reserved matter, nevertheless, in the operation of those services devolved to Wales—in this case, agriculture and the agricultural wages Bill that the Welsh Assembly had passed—that was a matter proper to the Welsh Assembly to legislate upon. The Supreme Court upheld that. I have seen legal opinions by an eminent QC, commissioned by the Wales TUC. I also know that the Welsh Government have had strong legal advice. Should it be necessary—it may still be—to go to the Supreme Court to challenge the UK Government’s position on the principle involved, the Welsh Government would probably win.

As I said to the Minister earlier when speaking on the Enterprise Bill, at stake here is the principle of devolution. Where services and matters are devolved, that should be a matter for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly to legislate upon, not for this Parliament.

I dealt with these issues in great detail on Second Reading on 11 January and also in Committee on 8 February, so I will not detain the House further with those detailed arguments. I would just caution that the future of the United Kingdom is at stake. We know that the Scottish Government want to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. It does not do any service to those of us who believe in the importance of retaining the United Kingdom, for all the benefits that it brings us in making us stronger together rather than weaker apart, to undermine by the back door the devolution settlement in a way that, I fear and regret, the Government have been doing on this Bill.

I ask the Minister to reflect further and maybe come to an understanding with the Welsh Government and their Public Services Minister, Leighton Andrews, in particular. I know that the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, has written to the Prime Minister about the way that this will work in future. The new Wales Bill—which we understand will introduce a reserved powers model, although it has been hugely controversial—may resolve this matter, but it may not, as we saw with the Supreme Court judgment. I think that we must tread very carefully on this ground, and I regret that, on this occasion, in this Bill, the Government have not done so.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hain and other noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I urge the Ministers, who appear to be in a very gracious mood this afternoon, to extend this graciousness to this particular aspect of the Bill. Otherwise, it seems to me that what we are doing is actually legislating for future conflict between the devolved Administrations, in this case Wales, and the United Kingdom Government.

My noble friend Lord Hain has mentioned how the Agricultural Wages Board situation some years ago went to the Supreme Court. When he and I held the offices of Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland, we decided, as a Government, that the best way we could resolve disputes between the new devolved Governments and the United Kingdom Government was through discussion and dialogue. We therefore had interministerial conferences, joint ministerial governance and all sorts of committees that met to iron out differences of opinion between the Governments of Wales, of Northern Ireland, of Scotland and of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we have had a relatively lengthy discussion, both in Committee and this evening, about the territorial reach of the Bill. We have thought about Wales, the home of my grandfather—although I do not think that that is quite a declaration of interest. I hope that we have made it clear today, clause by clause, that we are listening carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about the helpfulness of the changes on facility time and check-off relating to the concerns about Wales. I congratulate her on the launch of her manifesto today—a good reason for speaking.

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness as we never comment on leaked letters, but we had a discussion in Committee about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and about the Supreme Court judgment in the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, which considered the competence of the Welsh Government where multiple subjects were at play. Of course, the court held that the Welsh Assembly had competence as the case concerned a situation where the devolved matter of agriculture was specifically in play. By contrast, this Bill is concerned with industrial relations, which is solely a reserved matter.

There are other cases that I will not go into at this moment, but the key point is that we cannot ignore the fundamental and well-established principle that there should be a unified system of law for certain matters. Employment and industrial relations law is one important example that has to apply consistently across Great Britain. Devolution of these matters, which is the effect of this penultimate amendment we are looking at, could lead to the differential treatment of workers and the development of a two-tier system, making it more difficult for workers to move freely within the labour market. That, of course, is why employment law is reserved in Scotland, and not conferred in Wales. The importance of having this single regime has been reconfirmed in the context of the Scotland Act which received Royal Assent recently.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, sought, in our earlier discussion on the Enterprise Bill to look at the devolution of exit payments and suggested that our treatment of those was inconsistent with our treatment of the Trade Union Bill, to which we have now turned our attention. This is not correct. The Government of Wales Act 2006, which I referred to earlier, gives legislative competence to the Welsh Government for pensions and compensation payments to specific employers and for specific purposes. This is why the Welsh Assembly has regulation-making powers in relation to exit payments in the Enterprise Bill. In contrast, the Trade Union Bill is about employment and industrial relations law, which is not conferred on the Welsh Government—it is a wholly reserved matter, as I have said. The benefits it will bring should apply across the whole of Great Britain.

I appreciate that not all noble Lords share my assessment—hence this amendment—but I cannot accept that the way forward is to exclude certain public bodies outside England from specific provisions of the Bill. That would extend devolution by the back door and undermine discussions in the context of the Scotland Act and the draft Wales Bill. Parliament has put in place provisions for revising the devolution settlements. It would not be appropriate for this Bill, or others unrelated to constitutional devolution matters, to determine the boundaries of devolution in isolation. We are here today not to debate and amend the devolution settlements but to deliver our manifesto commitment for industrial relations and employment law.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we do treat devolution with respect, as noble Lords can see, in many different ways, but I cannot agree with her or with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, about the way forward on this amendment. Can we just consider the hugely significant impact of the amendment on the Bill? Under the amendment, none of the Bill’s provisions would apply to any public body in Wales, regardless of whether the public body were devolved. That would mean that neither the 50% turnout threshold nor the 40% support threshold for important public services would apply to industrial action ballots in Welsh schools or Welsh hospitals. The threshold provisions in the Bill ensure that strike action only happens where there is a strong and positive mandate. That is as important, it seems to me, in Cardiff and Wrexham as it is in London or Glasgow.

This amendment would also mean that ballot papers for industrial action in the DVLA or the Border Force in Wales would not be required to contain a summary of the matters in dispute, despite the fact that both bodies are responsible for matters that are solely reserved. Not only would this amendment therefore undermine the devolution settlement with Wales, and the principle that employment matters should be reserved, but there could also be unintended consequences, as I have highlighted. Where bodies have premises in Wales, there would have to be two different sets of rules for different workers by virtue of where they were located.

If the House were to approve the amendment today, it would set a precedent that future employment and industrial relations legislation would not apply to public bodies in Wales. We could anticipate a time when individual rights, such as protections from unfair dismissal, would not affect public bodies in Wales. I am sure that that is not what anybody wants, but we have to look at the implications of making a change in an area which is clearly reserved. Of course, we will continue to talk about the delivery of devolution in the weeks and months ahead, but I hope that I have explained our position clearly this evening.

[Lord Hain]

The Minister has been very generous this afternoon, but I fear that her generosity is now straying into dangerous territory. I am very concerned. May I point out that when Welsh Ministers start to read the text of the Minister’s reply, they will find that she is digging herself into a deeper hole in this matter? Some of what she has said is very contentious on the interpretation of the devolution settlement for which I was largely responsible in the Government of Wales Act 2006, as Secretary of State. I am very concerned, if I may so, in the gentlest way possible, that she is reading from a civil servant’s script that is seeking to get back some of the powers and responsibilities that have already been devolved.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord. I am certainly not seeking to make any changes. I said in response to a point made by a colleague that it was important to respect the devolution settlement. I am trying to explain that this is a reserved area and that if you change that there are implications of the kind that I outlined. That is why we feel strongly that this needs to be a national measure. It fits in well with the unified system that is needed for certain matters and takes account of the fact that employment and industrial relations law is reserved. Of course, as we discussed earlier in relation to the Enterprise Bill, there are particular detailed provisions—apprenticeships are a good example—where I completely understand that the Welsh Government create their own rules. What I am trying to do on this Bill is to make sure that we do not move into constitutional areas which are not appropriate for today’s debate. I have also tried to explain that there is a risk of things being unworkable. I consider that the amendment has far-ranging implications which I cannot accept. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

European Council

Lord Hain Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is right. It is because we have been clear about the things that need to change that the European Commission is already looking at the sorts of changes that could be made. This is an organisation that responds not simply to pressure, but to political realities, so we have to make sure that the political reality after the next election is someone walking into the Berlaymont building or the European Council building and demanding change, rather than someone wandering in and just saying, “Relax—there’s nothing you need to do. We don’t have to have a referendum. We don’t need a renegotiation. One day we’ll join the single currency.” All the pressure would be off and, yes, some in Brussels would breathe a sigh of relief, because it would be business as usual with Labour and probably the Scottish National party too.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I endorse the Prime Minister’s welcome to our excellent new chief Clerk. I also welcome the fact, Mr Speaker, that you are proceeding speedily to the appointment of the post that will carry out the chief executive duties, the director general. That is very important.

On Greece, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that simply repeating the same dose of austerity on the Greek people and their Government will not achieve the objective any more than the last dose did? National debt went up in Greece as a result of the austerity programme. Of course, the Greek Government have to reform to collect their taxes and to get rid of corruption, and the Government have volunteered to do that, but going down the same austerity road is not going to revive the Greek economy or enable it to repay its debts. Those must be rescheduled and the reforms around that must ensure that Greece is capable of repaying its debts, not being strangled with austerity.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The problem is, though, that the people who have lent the money to Greece want their money back, and they believe that Greece should carry out a series of reforms before they give it any more money. He or I can take a different view and argue as I would, although he would not, that Greece should never have joined the eurozone in the first place. That is not the right hon. Gentleman’s view because he is a fanatic about the eurozone. None the less, as we have not lent money to Greece, we are not in that position. If he had been at the European Council he would have heard, whether from the Germans, the Dutch and the Scandinavian countries, or from the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Irish, who have all been through these painful processes, that there is very little appetite to cut Greece a lot of slack.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hain Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said, the approach taken by Sinn Fein is hugely disappointing and dramatically different from everything that it has been saying over the past few months. I am urging Sinn Fein to change its approach. It is vital that we have a responsible and realistic approach to welfare. The welfare reform package agreed under the Stormont House agreement is a good one, a generous one and a fair one, and therefore it is vital that it is implemented.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

May I wish all my friends in Northern Ireland the very best for the future? People often take for granted the peace and stability that has been secured in Northern Ireland since the 2007 agreement, but that was won only after conflict, terror and hatred going back centuries, through very difficult negotiations. It took dedicated skill and constant strong leadership by the Labour Government to achieve it. Does the Secretary of State accept that maintaining that progress requires nurturing by this Government and by any Governments to follow?

[Mrs Villiers]

I do accept that. This Government will continue to do all they can to support and nurture that political settlement. That is a message that all parties need to hear, including Sinn Fein—that we should not take risks with political stability in Northern Ireland, because the consequences could be very grave.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hain Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. It is vital for businesses and for individuals to be able to access wi-fi, do their work and make other contacts while they are on trains. I am pleased to announce plans that will see the roll-out of free wi-fi on trains across the United Kingdom from 2017. The Government will invest nearly £50 million to ensure that rail passengers, who make more than 500 million journeys every year, are better connected, with the four rail operators—Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern; Southeastern; Chiltern; and Arriva Trains Wales—all benefiting from that investment.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

The Motability car that my severely disabled constituent, Mark Francis, has had for 11 years is being taken from him in two weeks. Born with hereditary spastic paraplegia and unable to walk without crutches or sticks, he is sadly deteriorating by the week. I have been told that his case will be reconsidered, yet the Department for Work and Pensions is punitively and callously snatching his car from him on 25 February. Will the Prime Minister immediately rectify that heartless and disgraceful injustice?

[The Prime Minister]

As ever, I am very happy to look at the individual case raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, with the replacement of disability living allowance by the personal independence payment, the most disabled people will be getting more money and more assistance, rather than less, but as I say, I will happily look at the case.

Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Lord Hain Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What I can be clear about, having spoken to them, is that both the Kurdish leaders in Iraq and the Iraqi Prime Minister have been frank that they want our help. They have both said very clearly, “We do not want British combat troops on the ground, but we do need the arms and the ability to defeat this murderous, terrorist organisation.” We are helping in exactly the way they would like us to help.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I support the Prime Minister’s motion. I also think that, in the end, we will have to deal with ISIL in Syria as well. Did I hear him correctly a moment or two ago? Did he say that if there was an urgent humanitarian need, he would take the action and then get subsequent support from the House? Surely it should be the other way round.

[The Prime Minister]

No, no. To be absolutely clear, the right hon. Gentleman heard me right the first time round. If there was the need to take urgent action to prevent, for instance, the massacre of a minority community or a Christian community, and Britain could act to prevent that humanitarian catastrophe—if I believed we could effectively act and do that—I am saying I would order that and come straight to the House and explain afterwards.

Let me be clear: I think the convention that has grown up in recent years that the House of Commons is properly consulted and there is a proper vote is a good convention. It is particularly apt when there is—as there is today—a proposal for, as it were, premeditated military action. I think it is important to reserve the right that if there were a critical British national interest at stake or there were the need to act to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, you could act immediately and explain to the House of Commons afterwards. I am being very frank about this because I do not want to mislead anybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Although I support the motion authorising military strikes on ISIL in Iraq, and although I fully support my party leader’s caution over extending it to Syria without UN backing, the blunt truth is that simply allowing ISIL to retreat across what if regards an invisible border that it controls into Syria to regroup is no answer.

First, why British military action against ISIL’s barbarity but not Assad’s butchery? Should not the haunting and ill-fated legacy of invading Iraq instruct us to stay well clear? In the Cabinet in 2003, I backed Tony Blair over Iraq because I honestly believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I was wrong. He did not. We went to war on a lie, and the aftermath was disastrous. That has made me deeply allergic to anything similar in the region and certainly anything remotely hinting at cowboy western intervention.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the intervention in 2003 was welcomed by a lot of the people of Iraq, particularly by the Kurds?

[Mr Hain]

I agree absolutely.

Even Libya, supposedly a surgical operation consented to by this House in 2011, is hardly a good advertisement for us, with chaos now in the country.

[Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

In supporting the motion, as I think broadly we are across the House, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the lessons from the 2003 intervention in Iraq is that we should have designed in the reconstruction of Iraq as a democratic state from the outset, rather than leaving it till after we had achieved some military effect?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

Indeed. We tried to, but the Americans took no notice, frankly.

In the Syrian horror from which ISIL has sprung, of course Assad’s forces have unleashed waves of terror, but his jihadist opponents too have committed terrible atrocities. That is the context that has given birth to ISIL; not because the House prevented the Prime Minister from armouring moderate rebels in the Free Syrian Army. Had the Prime Minister got his way last August, where might those British arms have ended up? Probably with ISIL. Instead of trying to bounce Parliament into backing military strikes in Syria last August, we should have been promoting a negotiated solution right from the beginning. That was always going to be the only way to get Assad and, more importantly, his backers to shift towards compromise.

Syria never was some simplistic battle between evil and good; between a barbaric dictator and his repressed people. It is a civil war; a quagmire into which Britain should tread at dire peril. At its heart are the incendiary internal Islamic conflicts—Sunni versus Shi’a, and their chief protagonists and sponsors Saudi Arabia versus Iran. There is also a cold war hangover, of the US—with all its considerable military and intelligence assets in the region—versus Russia, with its only Mediterranean port and intelligence capability in Syria.

Even more crucially, Assad is backed by 40% of his population. His ruling Shi’a-aligned Alawites, fearful of being oppressed by the Sunni majority, along with the Kurds, Christians and other minorities do not like his repressive Ba’athist rule very much. They fear the alternative even more; becoming victims of genocide, jihadism or sharia extremism. Assad was never going to be defeated militarily and he is not now. That is the truth. If western military intervention had somehow toppled him without a settlement in place, violent chaos on the Syrian quicksand would still have ensued. The Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, along with the UN, set out a political solution, which should always have been the imperative. That means negotiating with Assad’s regime, along with the Russians and Iranians standing behind him.

Our failure to undertake that is a major reason why the civil war, in my view, has been so prolonged and why ISIL has been allowed to flourish. Mediaeval in its barbarism and its fanatical religious zeal, which views its own narrow Wahhabi sect, dating from the 18th century, as possessing the sole truth, it uses that as the justification for exterminating both all its opponents and any other religious group blocking its way to establishing a caliphate. It has to be stopped and Britain has the military surveillance and intelligence capabilities that those on the front line fighting ISIL do not. In northern Iraq, only US air power—at the request of the Iraqi Government, the Kurds and the minorities facing genocide by ISIL’s remorseless advance, and very significantly, with the military participation of half a dozen nearby Arab countries—has knocked back ISIL’s well-equipped army. It would not have happened otherwise. That Iran gave its de facto if covert blessing is of significance, opening an opportunity for future engagement and collaboration which could be transformative for the whole region, Israel-Palestine included. Britain should also help local Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting ISIL with air strikes, drones, military equipment and other support, but not with troops on the ground. Countries in the region have to take ownership of this battle because ISIL threatens them all.

The elephant in the room, for me, remains Syria. ISIL will never be defeated if it is constantly allowed to regroup from its Syrian bases. Without either UN or Syrian Government authorisation, air strikes in Syria may be illegal, although there could well be justification under international law for such strikes, even without UN agreement. And UN authority for air strikes in Syria will not be granted without Assad’s and Putin’s agreement—maybe President Rouhani’s too. That is very difficult—to many, very distasteful—but very necessary. What is the alternative? Although Syria’s Russian-supplied air defences have been hit by the fighting, they are quite sophisticated. Even the US had to pre-inform Damascus about the timing and location of its air strikes this past week or so.

Yet engaging does not mean befriending. Rather, it is akin to what Churchill said in 1941: “If Hitler invaded hell”, he told his private secretary as Germany readied to invade Stalin’s Russia,

“I would at least make a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

Handled sensitively this could be an opportunity—and I urge the Prime Minister to take it—to kick-start a proper Syrian peace process and to defuse the long-standing, deep and inflammatory divisions among Muslims in the middle east: Iranians as Shi’ites sponsoring Hezbollah and other militias; Saudis and Qataris as Sunnis sponsoring al-Qaeda and other jihadists—including ISIL, where they have helped to unleash a monster that threatens to devour them all.

By acting carefully, not bombastically, and by making common cause with both Saudi Arabia and Iran to confront a common ISIL enemy, Britain could even help realign middle east politics to overcome the bitter and violently corrosive Sunni-Shi’a fault line in the region. It is a big ask, and an even bigger task, but an immensely valuable one.