Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Hain and Susan Elan Jones

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

rose—

[Susan Elan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Hain]

I think I really ought to conclude my remarks.

Surely the principle behind the 2006 Act is right: namely, candidates must make their choices and then voters will make theirs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), also a former Secretary of State for Wales, put it well in a debate on the then Bill in January 2006:

“The additional member system that we have as a result of the 1997 settlement is fundamentally flawed. People do not understand it. They do not understand how an individual can stand in two ways for the same body on the same day in the same election and be defeated, then get elected a matter of an hour or two later. Equally if not more confusing is the fact that, in my constituency and in those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the south Wales valleys, thousands upon thousands of people vote Labour on their second vote, yet none of those votes is counted. I do not understand the logic of that. I can understand the technicalities, because I taught the subject many years ago when I was a teacher in a college of further education, but as an elector or as an elected representative, I think that it is terribly confusing and ought to be changed.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 63.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), as the then Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, said in the same debate:

“Electoral reform should not get caught up in internecine party politics...the present system is an unloved and confusing creature that causes more grief than it is worth.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 69-70.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said:

“Following the last Assembly election, many people asked me how candidates who stood at the election and were defeated—and, in many cases, defeated by a country mile—could find themselves sitting in the Assembly, claiming not only to represent constituents but having equal status with the people who defeated them. How would we feel if a third of this Chamber”—

by which he meant this Chamber—

“were made up of candidates that had stood against us”

before appearing on the list

“they would not have come up with such a system even in North Korea”,

although I confess to having come up with it as a Wales Minister in the 1998 legislation. My hon. Friend continued:

“Once getting into the assembly via the back door, these characters spend much of their time cherry-picking issues and targeting seats that they or their party are looking at for future elections.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 96-97.]

Those are some of the reasons why I introduced the bar on dual candidature. It is astonishing that, for narrow partisan party reasons, the Secretary of State is assisting his own party members in Wales and those of other parties who complained about the ban. After the 2006 Act banned dual candidature, the well-known democratic abuses that had occurred before were not repeated. I find it astonishing that the Secretary of State is reinstating a regime that brought democracy in Wales into such popular disrepute. If he persists, I hope the House of Lords will delete clause 2.

I want to pick up on an earlier point relating to the interesting exchange I had with the Secretary of State. I will read the exchange in Hansard carefully. I was not at all convinced by his answer. Indeed, I remain very concerned, on the question of income tax devolution, that Wales will be cut adrift from richer parts of the United Kingdom and lose out. There have been a lot of warm words about indexation, but I do not find the answers we have been given, or the references in the associated financial documents, to be at all compelling or convincing. I respect the Holtham commission and I respect Gerald Holtham. I understand his points on indexation, but I do not trust a Conservative-led Treasury to honour the commitments in the Holtham commission.

I would be more reassured—this is a cross-party point, because we all want to see Wales doing the best it can—if a clear and absolute commitment was embedded in the proposed legislation for Wales to continue to benefit, regardless of income tax devolution, from the wealth of the United Kingdom. My politics come from a belief in fairness, and the redistribution from richer to poorer regions and from richer to poorer individuals. I do not see how tax accountability, which the Secretary of State exalts, can be a two-way bet. I do not see how having devolved income tax and giving, in the main, the Assembly greater accountability to local voters, will then be protected, according to the Secretary of State’s reassurance, by a kind of indexation that undermines that accountability. That makes me even more suspicious of it. I will be extremely sceptical of, if not opposed to, income tax devolution until I am absolutely sure that Wales will not lose out, for the reasons I have described.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Hain and Susan Elan Jones

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hain]

I will come to that point when I discuss whether we should consult groups such as the Royal British Legion.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

One consultee that my right hon. Friend proposes is the National Farmers Union. As urban areas are, by their nature, in the majority, those of us who represent rural areas are always fearful that the voice of rural Britain will be left out. Does he agree that it is of pivotal importance that farming groups are consulted?

[Mr Hain]

I do, and I am about to make that point.

As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, I am a pro-European, but I am also a critical one. That is why amendments 77, 78 and 68 and new schedule 2 are important. I am not a Europhile who cannot see that the EU needs reform or who wants integration at all costs. I am a practical European. I voted yes in the 1975 referendum but, as an MP in 1992, I voted no in the House to the Maastricht treaty—with the hon. Gentleman, among others—because I did not think the foundations on which the euro was erected were the right ones. Time has probably proved that view correct.

As Europe Minister over a decade ago, I was intensely frustrated with what I call the Brussels bubble, which is mainly inhabited by Commission officials, small-country Ministers and European parliamentarians. It exists in a world of its own, forming an elite and making the EU increasingly unpopular among its citizens. But—and this is the point of a proper consultation—none of this means that we should pull out, any more than Scottish frustrations with the Westminster bubble mean that Scotland should withdraw from the United Kingdom, or voters’ frustrations with all the major political parties, including Labour and Conservative, mean that they should give up on parliamentary democracy.

We need systematic consultation with a report that Parliament can properly assess before deciding how to proceed. I am sure that the Royal British Legion, if consulted, would have something to say. Just imagine if, at the end of the second world war, Monnet and others had concluded that 80 years of bitter Franco-German hatred made European unity impossible.

The following 60 years of Franco-German reconciliation and EU achievement would never have occurred. That is a matter that organisations, particularly veterans organisations, should be properly consulted upon, under sub-paragraph (j) of new schedule 2. It is incumbent on our generation to find the means to take Europe forward on the global stage, not to retreat into reactionary isolationism.

Amendment 68, like new schedule 2, would place an obligation on the Government to consult on all these matters. It is essential that we do so. The consultation would also be an opportunity to recognise that Europe’s first achievement was to remove the internal tariff barriers that held back growth and prosperity across the whole continent, including Britain. We accepted that, especially with globalisation, our interests were best served by bringing down barriers, which enabled Europe to act as one unit in trade and become a more powerful, if as yet imperfect, force for trade liberalisation under internationally agreed common rules. Again, we could be talking to the business sector and exporters about that, if the Government had the courage. It makes me wonder why they do not. Have they got a reason to be worried about a proper consultation?

Consultation under these amendments would also give us the opportunity to remind everybody—in particular, it would give the older generation a chance to remind younger citizens voting in this referendum, if it happens—that Europe’s success in reconciling once-bitter foes established and consolidated peace and democracy across the EU. It is important that there be proper consultation, that this be assessed and that Parliament have a chance to reflect upon it. For example, EU enlargement, first to Greece, Spain and Portugal—countries that until relatively recently were fascist dictatorships—and now to former communist states in central and eastern Europe that were also under a form of dictatorship, has amply shown how the zone of stability, democracy and prosperity can be extended right across a continent on which more wars have been fought over the centuries than in any other part of the world.

Similarly, with proper consultation—my amendment 78 suggests a minimum of 28 weeks—we could assess the impact of our being part of association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and of the continuing accession negotiations that the EU is conducting with Turkey. I believe it essential that those negotiations succeed, because Turkey is a vital bridge between Europe and Asia, west and east, Christianity and Islam. If we enter a referendum campaign in the heat and din of a three-week in/out squabble, none of these issues will be revealed, and that is why consultation is essential.