Homelessness: Emergency Housing

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

First, my noble friend will be aware that the why is because there are many people who are homeless or rough sleeping who need it. The projects are very carefully monitored and chosen. The projects that have been selected for the rough sleeping grant, for example, are very carefully monitored. They are providing a good service in helping people who are, through no fault of their own, sleeping rough to ensure that they get somewhere on a temporary, and then hopefully a permanent, basis. I applaud the work that the noble Lord did in setting this up, particularly in London where it was first a problem before it spread more nationally. Some of that early pioneering work has helped us concentrate resources and improve on what was done initially.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the major causes of the rise in homelessness is the shortage of supply of housing and the huge rise in the cost, particularly in the rented sector? Will the Government try to address at least that part of the problem by engaging in a programme of massive building of prefabricated housing? As someone who was brought up very happily until my late teens in a comfortable and affordable prefab, I strongly recommend to him that that is a rapid and effective way of addressing a fundamental problem of this 21st century.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I certainly agree that it is a factor. It is a very complex area, as the noble Lord will appreciate, so it is not simply a question of supply. Very often people are coming out of a secure environment such as the Armed Forces or prison and seeking somewhere permanent. The noble Lord is right that it is part of the issue. He will be aware that we are engaged in the most ambitious housebuilding programme for a generation, with a target of 300,000 new homes per annum by the middle of the 2020s. He is right about the importance of modern methods of construction—as we prefer to call these homes now, rather than “prefabs”. About 15% of new homes use modern methods of construction—but he is right that we could get that up and we are looking at doing that.

Wales Bill

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rowlands (Lab)]

I shall speak to Amendment 74, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to continue to clarify the issue of the apprenticeship levy. I express my gratitude to the Minister for his letter on this issue in November, which was extremely informative and helpful. It spelt out how the Treasury was going to Barnettise the levy, which was very helpful, but I would like to press him a little more on the mechanics of this arrangement. I put this in the form of a question, because it has been hard to get anything factual. Under the Barnett formula before the levy, am I right in thinking that it was the budget of the department for business that was responsible for expenditure on apprenticeships? Are we now going to see an exchange—a replacement of BIS with Revenue and Customs—which is not an addition but just a transfer of responsibility for organising the Barnett formula in relation to apprenticeships? Am I right in thinking that that is the mechanics of this case?

Of course, the apprenticeship levy came out of the blue and without consultation—a point that we made very forcefully in an earlier debate—when the Assembly had already devised a very positive and constructive apprenticeship policy, envisaging no fewer than 100,000 places over the Assembly period and a budget of some £110 million. Now I understand that—and I am grateful if this is the case—as a result of the announcements and the fact that the Assembly knows that some of the apprenticeship levy money is going to be Barnettised, it has increased the present budget from £110 million to £125 million. That is a significant and important additional contribution to the Welsh economy. So on that side, I can welcome what has happened. But alongside that, we still do not know what the cost of the levy will be to the companies, public bodies and major utilities operating in Wales and how much of it they will be able to recover, one way or another. Yet again, I put the point in the form of a question because I have heard of some of these figures only at second hand. I hope the Minister, when he comes to reply, will be able to give us a much more authoritative account.

As I understand it, one assessment has been that the apprentice levy is going to cost the public sector in Wales some £30 million. In fact many organisations, public utilities, public bodies and companies, frankly, are treating the levy as an employment tax. They cannot see how they can retrieve the sorts of sums they are going to be levied with in any form of apprenticeship scheme that is going to be available. For example, what is the cost of this levy going to be to our 22 local authorities? Am I right in thinking that a county such as Pembrokeshire is going to pay some £750,000 a year as a result of the levy, and Powys about £600,000 a year? Multiply that by the 22 local authorities and you wonder how those authorities can possibly reclaim, through the levy, anything like the amounts of money they will pay. Can the Minister clarify and identify for us what the cost will be to a whole range of public bodies, utilities—I am going to refer to utilities in a minute—local authorities, the National Health Service and the Welsh Government themselves, which are all going to pay this levy? I fail to see how, somehow or other, we are going to be a beneficiary of this arrangement.

I raise one other major anomaly. We have very large national utilities that stretch across Scotland, Wales and England. According to one figure I have seen, some 75% of the employees of these major utilities—the energy companies, et cetera—are in the devolved Administrations. That means they can claim only 25% of the apprenticeship levy that they are going to pay through the English voucher system. Again, I would like to know how this is going to be sorted out. The situation is muddled and lacks the transparency the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about. We are flushing out greater transparency but it is still not sufficient, and I hope that we can use the opportunity of debating this amendment to seek much greater clarification.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall follow on from my noble friend Lord Rowlands on the issue of the apprenticeship levy and very briefly and simply make the case for reconsideration of the policy being implemented now by the Government in both the public and private sectors.

I believe that within the formulas currently being employed—and this applies very particularly to Wales because of our substantial local government and public sector, for various historic and structural reasons—there should be better treatment for both private and public employers who are already proven good trainers. There is insufficient discrimination in the way the system is intended to operate now to give higher rebates or greater inducements to improve apprenticeship training, numerically and in qualitative terms, because those who are already good trainers, who have the custom and habit of making substantial provision for the training of new generations of skilled personnel, are simply not getting rewarded as they should for good performance, and for their strong intention to continue with that good performance, by comparison with employers who are and will be levy payers who have a much weaker record of the employment and development of apprenticeship skills. I make that plea in the context of this Bill because it has direct relevance.

There was a time, a very long time ago, in the early 1990s, when I had various obligations in my mid-life crisis of being leader of the Labour Party. We developed an apprenticeship levy scheme that was deliberately constructed in order to reward public and private sector companies and institutions with good records of apprenticeship performance and to finance their bonus, as it were, out of the levy on those with weaker performances. So there was a dual spur of inducement to improve apprenticeship performance in rewarding those who had good records—and intended to improve upon them—and in the minor penalty, but nevertheless a penalty, on those who had no such record of good performance. There was an inducement for them to reduce their levy obligations by improving their performance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

The rules certainly apply equally throughout the EU but you have to establish that there is a competitive element. The distance from Edinburgh to Newcastle, which would be the next nearest airport where there is no devolution of APD, is considerably longer—and, I think, is a considerably tougher journey—than that between Cardiff and Bristol. I think noble Lords would accept that. I suspect that it is longer than the distance from Cardiff to Birmingham as well, so there is that difference. In Northern Ireland there is a different issue. The issue there concerns the presence of an airport in a different member state rather than within the same member state. Therefore, the rules are the same but obviously the geographical issue is somewhat different.

[Lord Kinnock]

I say to the Minister as a matter of record that I would gladly continue with the situation of the UK being subject to the state aid rules of the European Union, and retain membership, than have any other kind of relationship. That being said, however, the point made by my noble friend is absolutely valid; namely that within the United Kingdom a disparity of treatment is allowed under state aid rules because the authorities concerned have been able successfully to argue—rightly, in my view—that the market is not distorted by having arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland which differ from those in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Given the argument to which I referred in passing about the area to be served particularly by Cardiff if it were able to dispense with the passenger levy, I believe that under the current state aid rules it could certainly be argued that there is no distortion of the market because the form of competition that exists between international airports is not such as to be distorted by the operation of a different levy system in Cardiff.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I think he would accept that it is a case of defining where there is a competitive market. The point I was making is that I think it would be much more difficult to suggest that there is a single market between Edinburgh and Newcastle in relation to air travel than there is between Bristol and Cardiff. I think that, factually, that must be the case. If you live in a suburb of Edinburgh, I do not think you would lightly consider going to Newcastle to catch a flight whereas, if you live in a suburb of Bristol, you might consider going to Cardiff and vice versa.

However, as I say, that is not the only argument that I am deploying. The point about giving a special tax status to Cardiff is the issue here. The Government cannot subscribe to that. However, we acknowledge that we will revisit air passenger duty at some stage. It may be appropriate to do so and decide how we approach it across the whole country as Brexit approaches, and in the light of decisions made on Heathrow and Gatwick. However, in relation to the specific issue, I am afraid that I cannot give any comfort to noble Lords who want me to move further than I have indicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kinnock]

My Lords, there are many issues on which I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. There used to be more, it must be said, in a different political lifetime, but I greet with some dismay the fact that I have to diverge from him on this issue, simply because he is wrong. I particularly pursue the point made in her intervention by my noble friend Lady Morgan. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, used the term “mission creep” to describe Amendment 90. Of course, that can be employed as a derogatory description of any development. If we put it in the context of devolution, however, we could categorise devolution entirely as “mission creep” because the whole proposition on which it has been based in this country—and perhaps, indeed, in biology, from which it derives—is that there will be an accretion of competences as time passes and the sophistication of devolved Administrations and legislatures takes place.

[Lord Balfe]

I wonder if the noble Lord recalls our jointly campaigning on the Welsh referendum in the 1970s. We were on the same side, of course, but presumably where he is now is the definition of mission creep.

[Lord Kinnock]

No, it is the definition of the fact that when confronted with reality, I try to make it work. Consequently, while I retain some reservations about the whole way in which devolution is taking place in the United Kingdom, I am utterly in favour of decentralisation of administration and decision-making, which any democrat must be, but would quarrel with the sectional and selective form of devolution that is taking place. I would argue on another occasion that, had we undertaken in 1979, let alone in the 1990s, the form of devolution that I and some of my colleagues, including my noble friend from Pontypool, were then advocating, there would have been devolution throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Perhaps we would not be confronted with the constitutional mismatches and disequilibria that confront us now, especially when we are faced with the prospect of the disaster of Brexit. I will return to that on a different occasion.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that the accretion of competencies that has taken place is in the nature of devolution. Indeed, the Minister could take justifiable credit for producing a Bill that assists in the clarification and strengthening of the whole devolution process. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will welcome the redemption of the Conservative Party, which, back in 1979, took a view that was almost as enlightened as mine on the issue. The most important point—and it is fundamental to this amendment and this Bill—is that the argument in favour of Amendment 90 is that those powers currently exist and they manifestly work. I am therefore employing, in a sense, a conservative argument in saying, “If it works, don’t fix it”.

What happens in Wales—and has happened for several years past—is that the powers advocated for retention in this current set of arrangements for devolution should remain: not that there should be mission creep, but restoration of the status quo. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that surely, in his changed political prism, he would recognise and wrap his arms around the principle of the maintenance of the status quo that works. It is on that basis that I hope the Minister will give further consideration to these arguments and retain a set of arrangements that work, that are warmly endorsed by everybody involved in Wales, and that do not constitute the difficulty of definition suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in discriminating between public and private employers. The terms on which this measure, if accepted, would be retained, properly describe where the responsibilities and obligations would lie and be exercised. It works now; do not fix it.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the discussion on these amendments. I will begin with Amendments 75 to 77 and 79, which seek to broaden the circumstances in which the Assembly could legislate in relation to reserved matters. I will first deal with an issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, concerning the phrase,

“ancillary to a provision of any Act”.

I took him to mean that this was not provided for in the Bill. It is in fact expressly provided for in Clause 3, in subsections (3)(a) and (b) of new Section 108A. It says,

“subsection (2)(b) does not apply to a provision that —

(a) is ancillary to a provision of any Act of the Assembly or Assembly Measure or to a devolved provision of an Act of Parliament, and

(b) has no greater effect otherwise than in relation to Wales, or in relation to functions exercisable otherwise than in relation to Wales, than is necessary to give effect to the purpose of that provision”.

So there is express provision in relation to “ancillary to” and how that would operate, and I hope he finds that of some comfort.

Wales Bill

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 7th November 2016 Lords Chamber

In the next group of amendments, we will look at greater borrowing powers. In life, in order to borrow money, one has to have a way of paying it back. It is therefore only logical that the Welsh Government and the Assembly are given the power to vary income tax. It is essential that the Welsh Government stop shying away from responsibility for their income and from full-blown power and control over its activities. We have to come to the day when the Welsh Government no longer blame the UK Government for everything.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, in a tiny way this is a historic occasion: it is the first time in my recall that I diverge ever so slightly from the view of my noble friend Lord Morgan, and it is on the issue of the relevance and applicability of referendums. It is clear from what several noble Lords have said that bruises are borne as a result of the fact that we in this country having recently been through a referendum—indeed, I have not only bruises but scars to show for the experience. Nevertheless, the reality is that in a parliamentary democracy referendums are justifiable when there is a proposal to change the way in which we are governed.

That was the basis for the justification of the 23 June referendum, just as it was for those of us who campaigned for a referendum on entry to the European Communities and those of us who campaigned for referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution back in 1979 and greeted with satisfaction the proposal in the 1990s that referendums should determine whether a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament were introduced. The same joy stirred our hearts when we saw an enacted proposal for referendums to determine whether major conurbations in England should have elected mayors. I use these references only to demonstrate the realism and the relevance of using referendums when there is a proposal to change the way in which a democracy or part of a democracy is governed.

Such is the case if there is a proposal to offer to the Welsh Assembly the power to levy income tax. That would profoundly change the way in which Wales was governed. It is on that basis that there is a straightforward justification for a referendum on such a fundamental constitutional and economic decision that has immense social, commercial and personal implications for every family, every community, every business and every employee in the whole of Wales.

Left at that, it could be dismissed as an academic, almost arcane argument—but it is not. It is much more prosaic than that. I join with my noble friends in objecting to the removal of the undertaking to give a referendum on the issue of the introduction of income tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly. That undertaking was not only given by several political parties representative of and represented in Wales, it was the subject of statute. It remains the subject of statute unless and until this Bill is enacted. For many years—indeed, decades—most political parties offered to the people of Wales the utter reassurance that they would have the final determining word on whether the elected Welsh Assembly is to have the power to levy income tax. Clause 17 should be removed from the Bill to ensure the continuity and integrity of those previous, voluntarily offered undertakings to the people of Wales.

There is a further consideration: we have a model to consider. It has been referred to already. It is, of course, the fact that the Scottish Parliament, from its inception, has had the power to vary income taxation in Scotland and has never seriously considered—let alone debated or proposed—in any formal manner such a variation. Why is that? Because of the utter unacceptability and impracticality of such an idea, even for a substantially devolved institution in a unitary state. I will certainly give way in a moment but will just finish this particular reference. The proposal that the Welsh Assembly should have this additional power in the absolutely certain and cynical knowledge that it would not be exercised is like offering me a car with the capacity to travel at 200 miles per hour and I buy it in the knowledge that the speed limit in the United Kingdom is 70 miles per hour.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

It might be helpful to recollect that when the referendum on devolution took place in Scotland, there were two questions. One was on the principle of devolution but the other was whether a devolved Assembly, as it was called in those days, should have tax-varying powers. That was separated out in the case of Wales but in Scotland, where I was, we had a vote on both at the same time. On exactly the point that the noble Lord was making, we had the democratic decision with a substantial majority that the Assembly, as it was then called, should have tax-varying powers. We got it all achieved in one.

[Lord Kinnock]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. At the time, I almost rejoiced in the full implementation of the long-standing Labour Party policy—developed under my leadership, as it happens, on the basis of continued representation from my comrades in Scotland—that a specific opportunity should be given to the people of Scotland to decide on that issue. Equally, and with substantial force, there were representations from Wales that that offer should not be made. Influences, parties and opinions in Wales suggested that that should not be the case. But their views were set aside—while undoubtedly being recognised and respected, as is our manner in Wales—and the issue was never put, and it never generated the merest scintilla of a spasm of objection.

Almost on the contrary, at that time in the 1990s and at this time in the second decade of the 21st century, there was and is no evident support among the public for the idea of income tax-raising or income tax-varying powers to be allocated to the Welsh Assembly. In this era, when all of us, if we have any sense at all, must be aware of the feeling of distance that exists between the general electorate and those who are elected to govern them, we should be sensitive to the idea that when there is no measurable support for a proposition that is as significant as the varying of taxation powers, and yet the recognised elected authority and the Executive go ahead and grant that power, on the best day it will be greeted as an irrelevance. On a less good day, it will be greeted with cynical dismissal.

[Lord Crickhowell]

The noble Lord said that it was a great constitutional change and dismissed the argument advanced—I thought very convincingly—by his noble friend Lord Morgan about the unsuitability of the question to be put in a referendum. However, will not the Welsh Government, or parties in the Welsh Assembly, have to put before the electorate the proposal in their manifesto that they will introduce or intend to introduce or change taxation? If they do so, will they not afterwards face the judgment of the Welsh electorate if the electorate disagree with what they have done and the way they have done it? Surely, therefore, we have a constitutional arrangement that allows the Welsh electorate to make their judgment both before and after a general election.

[Lord Kinnock]

I agree with the noble Lord. Certainly we have not only a constitutional but an electoral arrangement, which is of at least equal relevance. We speak of course in 2016, the year in which—indeed, just a few months after—an election of a new Assembly took place in Wales. I do not recall any proposition from any party—outside Plaid Cymru, which has been entirely and honourably consistent in its proposals—that said, “If you elect us, we will work to ensure that the United Kingdom, in a change of legislation, will allocate to us the power to vary income taxation in Wales”. I know that that is a political point, but it is worth taking into account. On this central issue of accountability, I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said when he advanced the idea that the allocation of powers to the Welsh Assembly to levy and vary income tax would enrich accountability in Wales. I say to him, and in part I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that accountability must relate not to abstract, desirable, mooted, arguable or deluded powers, but to exercisable powers. What we see in Scotland is a myth of accountability. When they have the power to vary taxation, as they have had for the best part of 20 years, and have not even begun to consider the implementation of such powers I simply do not see how accountability—the central principle of democracy—is enhanced by having a power but never exercising it, and never daring to exercise it. Where is the enhancement of accountability there?

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

Perhaps I might correct the noble Lord on a point of slight detail. The Scottish National Party, which is the governing party in Scotland, has made it clear that it intends not to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England on the level at which the 40% tax rate comes in. I think that the proposal in England, and indeed in Wales for the moment, is that there should be a rise of that level at which 40% becomes payable. The Scottish Government have said that they are not prepared to go along with that, so for the Scots the level will remain as it is at present. I grant the noble Lord that this is under a different power which has been given in a later enactment but to say that there is no desire by the governing party to make changes is a little excessive, with great respect.

[Lord Kinnock]

I accept the point entirely. I can respond to it only by saying that I await, without bating my breath, for the implementation of this proposition. I can see the attractiveness of it, especially to a party which is self-confessedly populist and has gained great strength by means of offering simple answers to complex questions. That has served that party well for several years—astoundingly well. I await that exercise of the variation under the supplementary powers granted to them and on that occasion, I will withdraw all speculation about Scottish inclinations to vary taxation powers.

[Lord Wigley]

The noble Lord very kindly talked of our consistency on these matters; I also respect his consistency on them from 1979 onwards. Can I press him on the point that he made about exercisable powers? The next bank of amendments will talk about a new exercisable power to have a capital investment fund. Without some ability to vary taxation, how does the noble Lord square that circle or does he not support the demand for a greater capital expenditure fund?

[Lord Kinnock]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who I respect greatly, that it would be—without oversimplifying this—on the same basis as borrowings are undertaken now. He will know of the generous and immensely useful support given to a variety of projects in Wales by the European Investment Bank. Nobody has required the allocation of tax-varying or tax-raising powers to the Welsh Assembly to enable that support. Since there is also a guaranteed income for the Welsh Assembly—inadequate and stunted by the application of the Barnett formula, as he and I would agree—but nevertheless significant, as he and I would agree, nobody lending money for major capital investment projects in Wales, within reasonable limits and according to the required fiscal disciplines, should worry about it because they will be guaranteed a return on their investment. It is not necessary to add to the obligations of the Welsh Assembly to facilitate that—within limited confines, as I say. I will give him an example, which I will pluck out of the air.

If, for instance, a sensible proposal was made for establishing a link between Rhoose international airport and the main train line from London to Swansea, I would certainly support it, or, indeed a spur road from the M4 or even a direct road from the A48 into Rhoose airport in order to enhance the attractiveness of this major infrastructure advantage, substantially, and rightly, supported by the Welsh Government. There is no reason why a guarantee of return on the investment should not be made by the imposition of a small toll on the road or the railway line. It is not unprecedented across continental Europe. If we want to know how successful such arrangements can be, the noble Lord only has to look that the second Severn crossing. A huge capital sum, vastly in excess of anything that would be needed to link Rhoose airport, has been paid off with, in my view, excessive and unfair impositions—I am speaking of the degree, not the principle. The same thing could be done elsewhere. I am not advocating it; I am simply saying that there is a variety of ways of guaranteeing a reasonable return on long-term capital investment without requiring the allocation of fund raising through income tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly.

If this removal of a requirement for a referendum is to have a real justification, it has to have evident support from people across Wales. They have expressed no significant demand for, or preference for, the further allocation of such a power to the Welsh Assembly. The maxim employed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which was coined by a Welshman at the time of the American Revolution, “No taxation without representation”, bears an addition in this century. It is: “No further allocated powers of taxation without at least consultation, without at least deliberation, without at least endorsement and, finally, without at least agreement”. That brings us back to the referendum because where there is an absence of demand for this change in the way in which the people of Wales are governed, there has to be a supreme additional justification for allocating a power that is not only not demanded but that we have every reason to assume would not be exercised, a power that would not lend itself to extra accountability or enhance transparency or enrich democracy. I wait to hear from the Minister a justification of the dismantling of the undertakings previously given by all parties and enacted for a referendum as a prerequisite of the allocation of income tax-raising powers to the Welsh Assembly.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I wonder whether I can assist the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, in his final question by telling your Lordships about my brother-in-law, who is Welsh, but who has lived in Aberdeenshire since the 1970s. In 1979, like the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, he was wholly against devolution to Scotland. In 1998, he had not changed his mind, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, and in the referendum he voted no to devolution to Scotland, but yes to tax-raising powers if a Parliament should be formed. At the time, we thought this was slightly odd. But what he was saying was that you should not have a parliament unless it is accountable—fully accountable. That is the point.

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the Welsh Assembly was constituted, and the Labour Party has, one way or the other, exercised power in Cardiff since its inception—it still does. The purpose of a proper Government is to raise taxes and to spend them, and to be accountable to the people from whom they raise those taxes as to how they handle their money. It is a perfectly simple proposition, but for the last 20 years, we have heard from the Labour Government in Cardiff that if they are incapable of providing adequate services in Wales—for example, in the health service or in education—it is because they do not have enough money sent to them from Westminster.

It does not require a referendum now. The reason why a referendum was provided for in the last Bill and why it appeared to be a good idea was that we were following the Scottish practice of 1998. But we moved on; devolution has moved on. We were tired, as my noble friend Lady Humphreys said, of the excuse that we are failing as a Government because Westminster does not give us enough money. It is time that income tax is devolved to Wales and that proper accountability should occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. For the sake of clarity—I correct myself as well—this is a clause stand part debate rather than a debate on an amendment to Clause 17.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Kinnock, for moving and speaking to the Motion that the clause do not stand part. I disagree with their intent. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, we have been here for nearly 20 years since the first successful referendum in 1997. Circumstances massively changed in that time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, said.

Let me try to deal with some of the points. Circumstances have changed since the Silk commission’s first report. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has been consistent on this topic, as has the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock. I confess that I have not. I am more like the brother-in-law of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have changed my mind on some of these issues. I should set that out first. In the Silk commission, all four parties recognised the need for income tax powers for the National Assembly for Wales. If it was to become a full legislature in the proper sense, it was accepted that it needed income tax powers. Some noble Lords have used the phrase as if it meant all income tax powers; of course, it does not; some income tax powers remain with the United Kingdom. We should make it clear that this is not transferring all income tax powers; it is transferring some. It is a significant change, I agree, but the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, for example, that it is a fundamental, apocalyptic change to the way things happen but that it will not be exercised is somewhat inconsistent. It cannot be both apocalyptic and not be used.

I very much hope that it will be used. We cannot necessarily draw conclusions from what has been happening in Scotland. I hope that the National Assembly for Wales will be more imaginative. I was there for 12 years, and there was evidence of a lot of free thinking on many issues, not least in this area, so I do not accept that the power will not be used. We must realise that it is a limited power; it is not transferring all income tax powers to Wales.

I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Morgan, about circumstances having changed, that perhaps we make use of referendums too freely, and that they are not always appropriate. I feel that if we were to insist on a referendum, it is arguable that we would be holding Wales back. In some quarters—I certainly exempt the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, from this—it is being put forward as a means of trying to defeat the proposal or slow things down. We would not be doing Wales a great service if we did that. This is a power for a purpose, as was identified by the Silk commission. It is bringing in accountability. It is making what I hope becomes the Welsh Parliament, in name as well as reality, a real Parliament with this element of tax-raising power on income tax.

[Lord Kinnock]

I asked the noble Lord for justification of the change in the law that would be implied by the enactment of the Bill, and he seems to suggest that times have changed and that the Silk commission has made recommendations. Does he believe that times have changed enough to give the Welsh people a real appetite for their Assembly to have the power to impose income tax additions? Does he think the Silk commission was really so conscious of the true economic condition of Wales and the distribution of incomes, referred to by my noble friend Lady Morgan, that it would permit a change that altered the law, removed the requirement for a pre-income tax allocation referendum and justified the introduction of new law? I do not think times have changed that much.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord on this point. I remember the same argument being put forward when we had the 2011 referendum. People were saying that it would not pass and that opinions had not changed in Wales. I remember people on my own side arguing that it would be defeated in all parts of Wales, up and down the country. That did not happen. It was won decisively in every local authority bar one—Monmouthshire, where it was marginally defeated. Do I think that circumstances have changed so that we do not need a referendum? Yes, I do. The noble Baroness speaking for the Labour Party thinks similarly, as do the other political parties. There is probably one political party that does not think that—UKIP—but I disagree with it. Opinion has changed and we would be doing Wales a massive disservice by having a referendum that I do not believe is necessary in the changed circumstances of devolution in 2016.

[Lord Kinnock]

Does the noble Lord recognise that to justify his contention about the movement of opinion in Wales, he referred to the 2011 referendum? Does he not consider that that makes my point for me?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

No, it does not. Rather the reverse, it showed that opinion in Wales had changed much more than people thought. The noble Lord put a fair question to me: whether I thought that opinion had changed in Wales such that we did not need a referendum. I hope I have given a very fair answer. It is a truthful one—I think opinion in Wales has changed to that degree.

Arguments were put on various issues in relation to this, not least in the area of borrowing. I agree again that, to have significant borrowing powers, there has to be a separate stream of revenue. This would present a separate stream of revenue, and even if the income tax rates were retained exactly as they are in England, it would give that separate rate of revenue. So, there is that as well. I know that we are coming on to a subsequent amendment on this issue. In view of the fact that I do not believe that this change is necessary and the strength of opinion from noble Lords around the Chamber, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That is absolutely right. The National Assembly for Wales doing something imaginative to raise income will be to the benefit of the Assembly and of Wales. That is the whole point of what is going on. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, in suggesting that there is something sinister in the change of heart here. Other parties have had this change of heart; it is a recognition that we do not need a referendum. I suspect that many of the people urging it are hoping to delay things—I exempt the noble Lord from this—or, indeed, defeat it. That should not be the aim. The aim should be to do what is right for Wales. I strongly and sincerely believe that if we were to have a referendum, it would be carried.

[Lord Kinnock]

On the issue of taxation levied on the people of Wales, will the Minister spend a moment explaining the logic, or lack of it, of a fiscal regime that has ensured, as he will acknowledge from his own experience, huge reductions in the public resources available to local authorities throughout Wales, with awkward consequences for some services and tragic ones for others? These include adult social care and post-16 educational opportunity. Where is the rationality in imposing such a fiscal regime nationally—for purposes I disagree with, but nevertheless that is the law of the land—and simultaneously introducing legislation that would, without a referendum, or further ado, allocate to the Welsh Assembly the power to vary, including raising, income taxes?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, we are being taken in a direction completely off the particular provision in the Bill. As I made clear before, this is a power which, as the noble Lord has just indicated, would enable the National Assembly for Wales to vary income tax up or down, or to ensure that it stays the same if that is what it wants to do. I myself dislike the word “imposing” on the National Assembly or people of Wales. Discussions are going on between the Finance Minister and his team in the National Assembly for Wales—for whom I have the greatest respect—and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and his officials. I believe that an agreement will be reached. If it is not, we do not get the legislation, because the LCM will only come forward if an agreement is reached to the satisfaction of the National Assembly for Wales, and presumably the Welsh Government as part of that. That will carry things through. I do not see that the local government position is anything to do with this.

Planning: Brownfield Sites

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

A consultation is going on at the moment about the technical aspects of rolling out brownfield sites. There will be a requirement for appropriate brownfield sites to be put on a register during 2017, but appropriate notice will be taken where there is some other use for a brownfield site, such as an allotment.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, especially in the wake of Brexit, there is a pressing need for the encouragement of higher investment in the economy, including public investment, and on brownfield sites? Given that, can the Minister give us an undertaking that the Government will raise the level of public investment from the current 1.5% of GDP to the 3.5% recommended strongly by the OECD?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of the £20 billion already committed to housing over the length of this Parliament to deal with the serious issues he raises. It is well above my pay grade to go beyond that as regards what the Chancellor may do in the next Budget, but I am sure he will take account of the economic circumstances and that he will look closely at where we are when we get to that Budget.

Draft Wales Bill

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has great experience and has done a tremendous amount in relation to this Bill. I recognise that and pay tribute to her. If there is one thing I have learned over the last generation, it is this: Welsh devolution is not simple.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the paradoxes and concerns highlighted again this morning in Questions and Answers in this House demonstrate the absolutely compelling need in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland for a comprehensive constitutional convention, as requested on this side of the House and that side, and, indeed, by all thinking people, in which number I would like to include him?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the compliment. It is true that there is a great danger that we do things piecemeal and do not look at the whole. That is a point well made. Obviously in relation to this Bill we are looking at the position in Scotland, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England as we proceed to try to take account of that. The noble Lord makes a powerful point: at some stage we will have to ensure that all these pieces of the jigsaw fit well together.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on his maiden speech. I note with pleasure that he now seems to be in robust good health. I have known him for 10 years in two capacities, one is his chairmanship of the all-party group that has been indefatigable in sustaining the arguments against an elected second Chamber and for a reformed appointed Chamber along the lines of the Bill introduced—I cannot remember how many times now—by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. The second capacity is his chairmanship—for many decades, I believe—of the All-Party Parliamentary Arts and Heritage Group, which has given such great pleasure and, indeed, education to so many of us.

In preparing my speech I have been very much assisted, as we all have, by the report of the Constitution Committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington. I look forward to a riposte to the Government’s riposte. I hope that she will add her own recollections—perhaps this has been mentioned—of her father’s very relevant experience in 1979.

The central scenario that I want to consider is to some extent my response to the very fair question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart—this is not said in a partisan spirit, although it might be viewed as such—namely, what happens when the coalition collapses? That is the central question. The whole Bill is framed to try to ensure that it cannot collapse and that it can be nailed down as if by President Mubarak. People say it is like being locked in a loveless marriage, but the idea that it was dreamt up in heaven does not quite tally with one’s instincts.

Why were some of us quite content with the Labour party manifesto one minute and then appearing to say something else the next? In the case of two recent Bills, many of us were supportive. My reaction to the Bill preceding this on AV was to be vaguely supportive until we started to look at some of the detail. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, will accept in good faith that there are so many contortions in the detail because of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, the lack of a Green Paper and a White Paper and the fact that the Bill is designed specifically not for the good of the Commonwealth for the next 500 years but to keep the coalition going for five years.

There is going to be a degree of sophistry in the arguments that are put forward. I would compare the central argument to the famous Catch-22 in Joseph Heller’s novel. Once one has nailed down the idea that there has to be a fixed-term Parliament for five years, obviously all the arrangements for votes of confidence and the question of whether the Prime Minister has to agree with the Speaker and whether anyone can turn up at Buckingham Palace or whatever are secondary to ensuring that the scheme cannot fail. Five years, again, has been designed clearly to maximise the period of this particular coalition, because not until five years have passed—it is hoped on the other side—can the economic and social crisis facing this country possibly turn around so that not everyone on the other side will be decimated at the next general election. If bets were taken on how the public would view a vote on five years versus four years at the moment, I do not think the bookmakers would agree to take any bets other than one way for very long.

The little exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Rooker, was very informative. As I understand it, the argument is that we have made arrangements on party funding in a five-year cycle and somehow it would be very inconvenient if the electoral cycle did not match that cycle. What an extraordinary way of putting the tail before the dog. Without necessarily repeating every word my noble friend said—I agree with the sentiments and the language—I must say that he made a very fair point in his question. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made an inappropriate remark. He is forensically very able in dealing with all these matters, but I did not think that that remark was particularly apt.

I have one question about how this would work in practice. We all remember 1974 and everything that happened in January, February and March that year, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who will have it branded on his soul; he was Principal Private Secretary to Mr Heath. Let us say that this Bill had been an Act. The Labour Government came in with a majority of minus one or plus one or whatever it was.

[Lord Kinnock]

It was minus three.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Minus three, jolly good. Can someone just spell out what the scenario would have been then? Who would have done what, with which and to whom, and would not the royal prerogative have somehow come into it at all? I ask the question in all innocence because I just cannot work out the answer looking at this Bill. I suppose that Harold Wilson would have been able to manufacture Dissolution by manufacturing a confidence vote that he would lose. Is that what we are supposed to believe? I would like to know where I am wrong. It seems to me an extraordinary contortion. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said so eloquently, when you go around the Commonwealth and other places on electoral missions and to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and so on, people tend to respect the very things that we are now going to tear up. It is English or British pragmatism gone mad, you might say, but these things work, and if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. The balance of evidence for deciding this matter is the degree to which it is broke and the degree to which fixing it will be satisfactory. That is the balance that we should obviously look to.

Finally, as an aside, how many of the IPU 77 countries cited by the Government in their reposte to the memorandum of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, can change their whole constitution by a single vote in the House of Commons? That worries me as well because many of them, I am sure, have a two-thirds majority to change the constitution. We have in this Bill a two-thirds majority to instruct the Speaker to sign a piece of paper, like Cromwell or someone, to say that this is now a lost vote of confidence. If the principle of a two-thirds majority is so important for that, why do we not have some sort of two-thirds majority provision on constitutional Bills generally? I am happy to echo what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton said in this characteristically superb forensic speech: that we will be protected only by the fact that unless the Government make some significant changes, they will be up a gum-tree so far as the Parliament Act is concerned. They could get away from under the Parliament Act if they do another U-turn on all the arguments that they have been advancing today, but that is something else. It is against that background that we will, I am sure, have a very interesting Committee indeed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey]

I am sorry that the noble Lord’s long experience in another place has not enabled him easily to absorb points being put by people who are, no doubt, less articulate than he is.

[Lord Kinnock]

But more numerate.

[Lord Lipsey]

The point I hope to make clear is that I am not claiming that there will not be a saving in salary; I am claiming that the workload will remain the same but that there will be fewer people to do it. You will still need people to deal with that workload and letters will still need to be sent. Is the noble Lord saying that if his constituency had increased in size by 10 per cent, he would not have written to anyone in that 10 per cent; that their problems could go fly because he had not got the money to pay for it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Renton of Mount Harry]

I would like to pick up on one or two of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes. I serve on the Constitution Committee, to which the Deputy Chairman and the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons came and told us, perfectly truly, as others have said, that there was no big explanation of why the figure was going down from 650 to 600. That has to be said. However, after listening to the debate—and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, whom I knew for many years in the other place—I do not believe that it has been made clear that during the time that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I were in the House of Commons the amount of expenses went up hugely.

I well remember that when I became a Member of Parliament in 1974—I know that to talk about one’s past in the House of Commons is not on in this debate—I had only sufficient expenses to employ a secretary for three days a week. Now we all know that Members of Parliament have expenses which, I have heard, enable them to have five or six people in their offices. It is not for me to say the precise figure or the precise number.

Certainly an awful lot of the work that I and other working MPs such as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did in our constituencies is now done by members of the office—and quite right, too. The prime job of a Member of Parliament is surely to be in Parliament, debating and making points there. However, the support that Members of Parliament now receive through their expenses is of very great value to them.

I do not know the precise reason for 600 rather than 650, but I can understand the view that there should now be fewer Members of Parliament because they have got so much support in their offices and in dealing with their constituencies. This takes away from them many of the jobs that burdened us. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, is about to say something. Under those circumstances, having been 25 years a Member of Parliament, I do not find the move down to 600 from 650 odd or extraordinary. I support it.

[Lord Kinnock]

My Lords, I have been tempted to enter the debate, to some extent, by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

A couple of fundamental points need to be made in the context of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. First, it is well known to those Members of the House who have been following this part of the debate that, since 1950, the electorate has gone up by 25 per cent and the number of Members of Parliament has gone up by 4 per cent, and we are speaking now against a background of a guaranteed further rise in the population and, therefore, a rise in the electorate. At the same time, there is to be a radical reduction of 50 seats in the other place and an equalisation of the number of constituents in the remaining seats. The only deduction that can be taken from that is that, all other things being equal, the workload of Members of Parliament will continue to increase—and increase additionally because of the reduction in their number, the point made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey.

As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly said, the workload and the character of the work typically undertaken by Members of Parliament have changed substantially over the years. I was a Member of the House of Commons for 25 years and the noble Lord for 30 years, and in those long periods of time the character and the size of the case load changed radically. Like him, in the 1970s I could afford a secretary for three or three and a half days a week, which, given our individual efforts, was sufficient to ensure that the casework of our constituents was adequately covered. There was a period early in my parliamentary career when I found the time and opportunity to go to employment tribunals, with some success. I always wanted to continue doing so but the remainder of the workload made that impossible. Now, of course, I might have a caseworker in my constituency, and with a suitably qualified person I could perhaps make extra inroads into the areas of particular concern to constituents.

In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, accompanying the increase and change in the nature of the workload has been an increase, to some extent, in the staff support for Members of Parliament. That is welcome. However, it is far from the number that he guesses at. Typically it will be three: usually a qualified researcher, a secretary in Parliament and a caseworker in the constituency, sometimes with part-time secretarial support. That is the size of it. Some Members of Parliament, in order to guarantee the quality of service, will go into their own resources and add to the amount officially made available for staff expenditure. I used to do that and, knowing the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I guess that he would do exactly the same.

However, in this situation, no one is proposing a guaranteed increase in staffing to run in parallel with, or as a consequence of, the guaranteed increase in the workload of Members of Parliament as a result of the arbitrary reduction in their numbers. Even without that guarantee, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey suggests, if Members of the other place take account of their increased workload and put it to whatever Government of the day that their workloads have demonstrably increased, there will be additional staff. In those circumstances, any assumed savings from the reduced number of Members of Parliament will evaporate. The picture that I paint is one of a massively increased workload, a change in the quality as well as the quantity of work undertaken and a welcome increase in staff establishing a benevolent trend which will guarantee, not too far ahead in years, a further increase in staff. All that my noble friend was pleading for was the absolute dismissal of any assumed financial advantage for the public purse arising from the change in the Bill. I suggest that the House accepts the wisdom of my noble friend’s words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is no estimate of the increase in costs. I shall answer that point when I get to the point about workload.

[Lord Kinnock]

On the basis that the Government want to do more with less, can the noble Lord suggest to me the reason for a very major increase in the size of this House which—setting apart the change in the allowances system—is hardly doing more for less? Secondly, as the Prime Minister was quoted earlier, perhaps I may bring the noble Lord more up to date and mention the Conservative Party manifesto and the proposed 10 per cent cut, which would take the size of the House of Commons down to 585. In those circumstances, we would have had a logical, electoral-based number to debate. In place of that and the Liberal alternative, we have the neat figure of 600. Would we not be getting more for less if we had 585, as the noble Lord’s party promised?

[Lord Strathclyde]

We certainly would. Ten per cent is also a nice round figure and very convenient for working out what the reduction would have been. However, we did not win the election with the majority that we wished. We had to reach an agreement with our coalition partners and, on that basis, we came to the figure of 600.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for moving this amendment almost three hours ago, and for the measured and considered way in which he advanced his arguments. He encouraged Members of the Committee to be thoughtful, and triggered a considerable number of thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions to the debate. They ranged widely over parliamentary, cultural and family history, and over the contribution that distinguished Members representing Welsh constituencies have made to the parliamentary democracy of our United Kingdom. I will also refer at the outset to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, about Wales being a nation. My noble friend Lord Morgan and the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, echoed that point. Certainly I accept that Wales is one of the constituent nations of our United Kingdom. I, too, would bristle if I looked up “Wales” in an encyclopaedia and found, “See under England”. Even though I am not Welsh, I would find that offensive.

The amendment seeks to guarantee a minimum of 35 constituencies in Wales. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, it is my understanding that when there was a debate on Report in the other place on the provisions of the Bill to equalise the size of constituencies, there were contributions from 16 Welsh MPs. Although the Government did give consideration to a Welsh Grand Committee, the Secretary of State for Wales and my honourable friend Mr Mark Harper, the Minister who is responsible for this Bill in the other place, held a meeting to which all Welsh MPs were invited. There was extensive discussion and Mr Harper offered individual follow-up meetings to all Welsh Members. That was the spirit in which the meeting took place.

[Lord Kinnock]

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way as a parliamentarian?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

No; I wish to answer some of the points that have been made in the debate.

The amendment stipulates the figure of 35, which—as was said by one or two contributors, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in moving his amendment—reflects the figure set out in the 1986 Act, which stated that there should be no fewer than 35 Members from Wales. I observe that the same Act stated that there would be no fewer than 71 Members for Scotland. That provision was repealed by the Labour Government. I do not complain about that; indeed, I encouraged them to do so. The number of Members of Parliament from Scotland under the Labour Government fell from 72 to 59, and is set to fall again under the Bill to 52, which is about a 26 per cent reduction. That will be relevant when we come to consider issues about devolution raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan.

My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy gave a clear expression of the Government's position as admitted in evidence. One of the underlying purposes of the Bill is to try to secure fairness—equal vote, equal value—throughout the United Kingdom. The amendment which has been moved and those which have been spoken to would go against that fairness of one vote, one value throughout the United Kingdom. We believe that every elector’s vote in elections to the other place should have the same value, regardless of where that vote is cast in the United Kingdom. It is important to emphasise that we are not in any way proposing less representation for Wales than other parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the value of a vote in Wales will be the same as the value of a vote in England, the same as the value of a vote in Scotland, the same as the value of a vote in Northern Ireland.

We have allowed for a 10 per cent range of tolerance between the largest and smallest constituency to take account of local and other factors. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, gave the impression—a caricature—that it was simply a matter of drawing square boxes on maps. That is not the case and does great disservice to the Boundary Commission, which will look at the issues and take account, to the extent that it thinks fit, of important matters such as special geographical considerations—the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency. The noble and learned Lord put it very well when he gave the illustration that a parliamentary boundary does not define which rugby team you will play for. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, said, when people are asked where they belong, they tend to answer in terms of old counties or smaller towns and communities. They tend not to identify where they belong in terms of parliamentary constituencies.

I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Steel is present—I saw him at one point—but he will recall that when he represented the seat of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, having the rugby teams of Hawick and Gala in the same constituency set up some interesting issues of rivalry between different communities. As I said in response to a debate yesterday evening, Members of Parliament by their nature represent a number of different communities within their constituency. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made the point about size and accessibility. Brecon and Radnorshire, which is the largest constituency in Wales, is often given as an example. To give a sense of perspective, it is worth stating that at 1,160 square miles, the current Brecon and Radnorshire constituency is considerably smaller than the constituency represented by my honourable friend Lord Thurso in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, which is just under three times larger than Brecon and Radnorshire. Then there is the constituency represented by my right honourable friend Mr Charles Kennedy, of 4,909 square miles. Of course, there are geographical limitations which the Government have submitted in the rules.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think that that would be accepted and acknowledged on all sides of the Committee. It is not just me standing here saying that it is feasible to represent a constituency of such a size, but the electors of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and of Ross, Skye and Lochaber have returned their respective Members of Parliament on several occasions, which suggests that they have been able to address the genuine needs of a constituency covering many communities.

[Lord Kinnock]

As we are explicitly discussing Wales, and the issue of Brecon and Radnorshire has been brought up, how does the noble and learned Lord suggest that that most rural constituency in Wales and England, with an electorate of 58,000, can be brought into consistency with the Government’s formula of a tolerance of 5 per cent either way and about 75,000 or 76,000 without making the size of the constituency now formed by Brecon and Radnorshire absolutely absurd and communication in that constituency almost beyond reach? I recognise the experience in Scotland. To create a constituency in mid-Wales that has about 70,000 to 80,000 constituents, there would have to be an effective destruction of neighbouring constituencies—to the north, in Montgomeryshire; or to the west, in Ceredigion; or to the south, in the former mining valleys. A suggestion about how a cogent constituency of between 70,000 and 80,000 can be formed would be helpful to the debate.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The first thing to note, because it happened very late at night, is that the Government accepted an amendment from my noble friend Lord Tyler with regard to existing constituencies being a factor to which the Boundary Commission may, if it sees fit, have regard. Perhaps that was not widely appreciated because there were not many of us around.

[Lord Kinnock]

I was.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think that the noble Lord congratulated us on that at the time.

The point I am trying to make is that the two Scottish highland constituencies to which I referred are substantially greater than Brecon and Radnorshire—in the case of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, almost three times as big; in the case of Ross, Skye and Lochaber, more than four times as big. We would have to go a very long way before we got anywhere near constituencies of that size, which have equally challenging geographical issues. Nevertheless, Members of Parliament have successfully represented those constituencies, as can be seen by the fact that they have been returned regularly in elections.

I take on the genuine issue, which several noble Lords have mentioned, of the effect of the interaction with the Union. I express myself as a passionate advocate of the benefits of the United Kingdom, while at the same time as someone who has vociferously argued for devolution. I recognise the sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, raised his concern about the Union.

My point, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, picked me up, is not unreasonable. I think that there is an issue of fairness, and I have not yet heard the argument why it is in some way unfair that a vote in Cardiff should have the same value as a vote in Belfast, London and Edinburgh. Indeed, those who argue the contrary must tell us what explanation we give to a voter in Edinburgh that a vote in Cardiff should be worth more. I have not yet heard that explanation. Neither do I believe that in some way that difference in value will cement Wales’s place in the Union. In fact, I think there is some merit in saying that if all parts of the Union are treated equally, that is positive. I would have hesitated to say it, because I am not Welsh, but my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made the point that the Welsh nation can have true confidence in itself. It does not need overrepresentation in order to have confidence in itself. That is worth bearing in mind.

I come on to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, when he asked about various points I had made in the past about devolution. Points have been raised about the Speaker’s Conference. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, much has happened since the 1944 Speaker’s Conference, and much has happened since the remarks attributed to my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke in 1992. We cannot hypothetically say, “What would happen to this Bill if we had the Wales Office and had never had devolution?”. That is not the situation today. It is the case that on the back of devolution, Scotland reduced its representation from 72 to 59, but devolution is not relevant to the proposals that the Government are putting forward because we are not seeking to make a distinction between Scotland, which has a different form of devolution from Wales, Wales, which may have more powers following the referendum on 3 March, Northern Ireland, which has a different system of devolution again, and England, which has no devolved government.

Noble Lords made the point that the United Kingdom Parliament deals with macroeconomic policies, defence—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke of the contribution that the constituent parts of the United Kingdom make to the Armed Forces—social security matters and pensions matters. The Government are saying that representation should be fair in all parts of the United Kingdom. There may be some who would argue that because Scotland has its Parliament dealing with a range of domestic issues, there could even be an argument for underrepresentation, but that is not the position of the Government. The Government believe that there should be equal representation in all parts of the United Kingdom, and that is what underlies this. We do not find it particularly acceptable that, for example, the constituency of Arfon, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, has an electorate of just over 40,000 whereas Falkirk has an electorate of 80,000. Indeed, it was pointed out that even within Wales, there are substantial divergences in the number of electors.

I shall pick up the point on the Welsh language. I cannot see why the reduction in the number of Members from Wales would have an impact on the Welsh language. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, some of the great steps forward for the Welsh language were taken by people who were not Welsh-speaking in response to those who made very good, cogent arguments for the Welsh language over many years. It is the case that many Members of Parliament in our inner cities are dealing with constituencies in which a variety of languages are used by people from minority ethnic communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made an important and valuable contribution when he referred to his manuscript amendment and there will be an opportunity to debate it more fully when—when—we come to Clause 18. The amendment would, as I understand it, mean that the first boundary review would take place as though the new rules were in force; the existing legislation would remain in force in the mean time; the new boundary provisions would be commenced only once the Boundary Commissions had reported; and votes in both Houses on the commencement order would be at that point. The House would effectively have the choice of commencing the new rules or retaining the 1986 Act rules. I recognise the intention behind this amendment, which was briefly spoken to by the noble Lord, and I salute the helpful spirit in which it was proposed. We will clearly want to give thought to the issues that it raises, but I will put down a caveat in that it invites Parliament to do what it does not usually do. Parliament usually sets the rules for the Boundary Commission and does not give people who have more than a vested interest in them the opportunity to decide whether they should introduce new boundaries that have a direct effect on them. Having said that, it is an innovative suggestion that I would be very happy to discuss with the noble Lord. I hope we will be able to have that discussion soon before we debate his amendment in due course.

In conclusion, I repeat that the provisions in this Bill will mean a reduction in the number of Welsh constituencies, just as in the rest of the United Kingdom. In opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, pointed out that Wales has 5 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom. On the 2009 figures, the overall proportion of Welsh seats in Westminster would go from 6 per cent to 5 per cent. I do not believe that that poses a threat to the Union. If anything, I believe that greater fairness and equality can help strengthen our union, and I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kinnock]

First, I endorse the first of the arguments the noble Lord has made so eruditely and accept it as a good definition of what should be the form and nature of Bills, particularly constitutional Bills, and most particularly Bills that affect the way in which the people of this country are represented. That being the case, does he not agree that the system we have employed for many decades to establish constituency boundaries and ultimately, therefore, as a product, the size of the House of Commons, should be retained? While general principles that permit flexibility are set down by the legislature, the execution of those principles should be in the hands of an independent body, the Boundary Commission, subject to sensible local appeal. On that basis, we would certainly have the breadth of principle that he calls for, and I agree with, and we would also be sensitive to the realities of parliamentary representation, community integrity and the relevance of local government boundaries that are in danger of being lost if this Bill is accepted without the amendments being put by my noble friends and which are now the subject, I hope, of productive joint consideration.

[Lord Tyler]

I am not sure whether that was an intervention or an extension into a new speech. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, has agreed with the principle I have advanced, but he has taken it into a different development. I accept that, in his inimitable way, he has made a speech to develop the point I was making. I accept too that he has a perfect right to do so, but although it was very interesting, it was not exactly what I wanted to say.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

It is part of the constitutional function of the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation. We are a bicameral Parliament. We have two Houses of Parliament and a duty in that respect. Moreover, the noble Lord is, as I am, a citizen of this country and we are entitled to take an interest in the development of the constitutional structure of this country. It is legitimate for us to raise some of these issues.

[Lord Kinnock]

Perhaps my noble friend could usefully redirect the noble Lord’s perceptive question to the government Front Bench. Perhaps the Government could tell us why there is a Part 2 to the Bill and why, therefore, we are discussing matters related to the elected part of these Houses of Parliament, instead of spending a short time additionally on the referendum and the alternative vote, and providing the Government with their legislation in good time for that referendum on 5 May.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My noble friend is, as always, very wise. It would have been greatly for the convenience of both Houses of Parliament had this legislation been segmented and introduced on the sensible basis suggested by my noble friend.