Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a significant amount of common ground between the Welsh Government’s paper and the 12 principles that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has outlined. This Government are determined to deliver a deal that works for every part of the United Kingdom. We have already said that no decisions currently taken by the devolved Administrations will be removed from them and that we will use the return of powers from Europe to the United Kingdom to strengthen devolution and the Union of the United Kingdom.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Over 5,000 EU students study in Wales and over 1,300 EU academics teach and do research, greatly adding to our national wellbeing. The Welsh Government’s EU White Paper makes it clear that their position must be secured. Why will the Secretary of State’s Government not adopt that elementary piece of economic good sense?

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others have said that we want to seek the earliest agreement to secure the status of EU nationals living in the UK and of UK nationals living in the EU. It is not in our interests to undermine any one sector. We would like to press for an early agreement, but it takes two people to come to an agreement.

[Hywel Williams]

Today, on International Women’s Day, my constituent Shiromini Satkunarajah will be studying for her final exams in electrical engineering. She is likely to get a first in her field, in which there is a world shortage of qualified people, women in particular. Had this Government had their way, she would have been deported last week. How would her deportation have steadied the Chancellor’s dodgy post-Brexit spreadsheet?

Wales Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I welcome the consideration that colleagues in the other place have given to this matter. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on fixed odds betting terminals, which are affectionately known as FOBTs. As many colleagues know, I have campaigned on this issue for more than a year. Sometimes I feel that it has taken over my life. There are 35,000 FOBTs located in high street bookmakers up and down the UK. These high-stakes, casino-style games are in low-supervision environments and are easily accessible to those who are most vulnerable to gambling-related harm. In Wales, there is a growing problem with FOBTs in local communities. According to the latest statistics, more than £50 million was lost on FOBTs in Wales in 2015.

The Lords amendment is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Powers should be devolved to the Welsh Assembly to allow local authorities to deal with existing clusters of betting shops in deprived areas. The most effective way to do that would be to reduce the maximum stake playable on a FOBT to £2, but the power to achieve that is not included in the Bill. There are growing calls for a reduction in the maximum stake, with more than 93 local councils across the UK, led by Newham Council, having now petitioned the Government to reduce the stake to £2.

The all-party group has concluded its inquiry into the machines. We found beyond reasonable doubt that the maximum stake on a FOBT should be reduced to £2 on a precautionary basis, in line with the objectives of the Gambling Commission. The full findings of the report are due to be published shortly, and we have been encouraged by the willingness of Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to work with us on this issue. I very much hope that they will respond positively by reducing the stake and properly regulating FOBTs. I eagerly await the result of the current stakes and prizes review.

These machines are directly linked to problem gambling, with four out of five FOBT gamblers exhibiting problem gambling behaviour at stakes in excess of £13 a spin, compared with one in five when stakes of £2 and under are involved. FOBTs cause significant economic and social problems. In particular, they lead to increased incidence of money laundering in bookmakers, as the gambling activity is largely unsupervised and it is therefore relatively easy for fraudsters to use it as a way to clean their money. They are also leading to more problems as players take out payday loans to sustain their FOBT usage. Increasing crime levels have also been reported, with betting shops now accounting for 97% of all police call-outs to gambling venues. Up to September 2014, there was also a 20% increase in police call-outs to betting shops. There has been a clustering of betting shops on Britain’s high streets, with a 43% increase in the number located in towns and city centres. This is destroying the health and vibrancy of our high streets.

The most effective way to limit the harm of such machines is to reduce the stakes, which are currently set at up to £100. A substantially lower stake would bring FOBTs into line with machines in other low-supervision environments such as adult gaming centres and bingo halls. The Gambling Commission itself says that if stakes were being set now, it would strongly advise against £100 stakes on a precautionary basis. A lower stake of £2 is the level that the previous Government said would bring adequate public protection. I encourage the Government to support amendment (a) to the Lords amendments, to devolve powers to Wales and to allow local communities to tackle the problems caused by FOBTs. Such a proactive move not only would recognise the danger of these addictive machines and establish good practice to protect our communities from it, but would be a positive step towards ensuring that we, as a society, take our moral responsibility seriously.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The third group of Lords amendments is wide-ranging and covers a variety of subjects. Some of those subjects are more welcome than others, and I regret to say that some resulted in my party voting down the Bill in the National Assembly. I will not address each amendment, as time is limited, but I will focus on key amendments that are salient to my colleagues’ decision making in the Assembly.

Under scrutiny, the Government have conceded on certain issues, for which I commend them. Those include areas where Plaid Cymru has pressed the Government in both places, resulting in Government amendments—that work should be noted. Lords amendment 73, for instance, devolves compulsory purchase, which was mentioned earlier. A previously silent subject, the National Assembly will now, without question, have the power to legislate to enable important infrastructure projects to go ahead. However, those are only small concessions that skirt around more substantive policy areas that could really make a difference.

Lords amendment 38, for instance, adds a new clause creating a statutory office for the president of Welsh tribunals; Welsh tribunals are already devolved. Although that is a welcome move on a practical level, it does little to satisfy those of us, including the Welsh Government, who have been calling for a separate legal jurisdiction to ensure a truly lasting devolution settlement. Without a strong and definitive legal jurisdiction of our own, surmounting the challenges that we all face in unpicking European law in the great repeal Bill will be even more difficult.

I would go so far as to say that the whole Wales Bill has been overtaken by Brexit. Leading constitutional lawyers and academics, and even the leader of the Welsh Tories, agree that the constitutional future of the British state is in flux. There are many possibilities and opportunities for both those, such as ourselves, who champion devolution and those who are sceptical about devolution. Famously, devolution is a process not an event, and we should be clear about the dangers of substantial rollbacks.

That brings me to the main focus of my speech, a series of Government amendments—all variations on Lords amendment 3—that will give Wales public authorities a different name, that of “devolved Welsh authorities.” The wording clarifies what constitutes a devolved public authority. Although, in isolation, the amendment is not a concern, it alludes to a more worrying aspect of the Bill, in which there are substantial rollbacks.

Throughout the scrutiny of the Bill, we have tabled amendments following concerns expressed to us by the Welsh Language Commissioner regarding the Bill’s potential effect on the National Assembly’s power to legislate on matters pertaining to the Welsh language. The effect of schedule 2 is that when the National Assembly wishes to legislate for the Welsh language, it will require the consent of the relevant UK Minister. Under the current settlement, ministerial consent is required only when legislating to impose Welsh language functions on Ministers of the Crown.

Ministers in both Houses have confirmed that if a future Welsh language measure were to be proposed, it would no longer be applicable to many more reserved authorities, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Crown Prosecution Service. Consent would be required to add to the list of devolved public authorities, which are contained in the Lords amendments before the House today. The Minister’s words offered no reassurance, or indeed any justification, as to why the Bill should include such a regressive step.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. He recognises the strength of the automotive and aerospace sectors, and I would point to some significant major investments the UK has landed. We are all familiar with Nissan investment in Sunderland, but it is equally important to the Welsh economy—Calsonic Kansei in Llanelli is a supplier to Nissan in Sunderland. We want to maintain the most open market arrangements, and the confidence shown by Nissan demonstrates it understands the priority we are placing on that.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

This week Hybu Cig Cymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and NFU Cymru have all made the overwhelming case in favour of tariff-free access to the EU for our world-class Welsh red meat. What is the Minister doing to ensure the voice of agriculture is heard in government?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), was at the winter fair in Builth Wells yesterday in Llanelwedd where he met the FUW and the NFU. We are in close dialogue with the farming unions in Wales and across the whole of the UK. Clearly Welsh agriculture is an important part of the Welsh economy and of our export market, and we want to maintain the most open trading relationship possible in its interest.

[Hywel Williams]

Welsh agriculture is spectacularly successful in EU markets; 93% of our excellent Welsh beef and lamb exports go to EU countries. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure French, Italian, Spanish and German people continue to eat Welsh meat in the future?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I too want to ensure that those across the European Union and elsewhere have the opportunity to benefit from the excellent produce that comes from Wales, including Welsh beef and Welsh lamb. We want to be global leaders in free trade. We also want the most open trading relationship with Europe that we can possibly get, and that is our determination and focus in our negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

In a Twitter message to me, the director of BT in Wales said that the

“vast majority of rural Wales, including Arfon, can already access superfast broadband”.

Does the Minister agree with her?

[Guto Bebb]

The “vast majority” is perhaps overstating the case, but the improvement over recent months has been spectacular, with rates of 90%-plus in many rural counties. There is still more work to be done, but in terms of rural broadband we are going in the right direction in Wales and the UK.

[Hywel Williams]

The main superfast broadband line passes the community of Crymlyn in my constituency, literally at the bottom of the people’s gardens. Many of these people run businesses from home and need to access substantial documents, but the download speed in Crymlyn would be an embarrassment even in the previous century. When will the Minister, or his Labour confederates in Cardiff, actually do something to remove this huge barrier to prosperity and economic growth?

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the investment in his own constituency, which is approaching £12 million. There are still issues in relation to broadband roll-out in Wales, but sometimes we have to recognise that what has been achieved is tremendous. We are slightly ahead of the situation in England, which is something we should all applaud. However, I make no bones about the fact that more and faster broadband connectivity in Wales is crucial. The Wales Office will carry on pressurising BT Openreach to ensure that that is achieved sooner rather than later.

Wales Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Another significant aspect of Glas Cymru is that it has been able to reduce its gearing and is now paying off its debts, whereas the debts of water companies elsewhere are geared to between 85% and 95% of their value. Glas Cymru’s debt is now down to about 65%. That is another dividend for the Welsh people.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. This is a huge success story. Why are we not shouting this from the rooftops and trying to emulate it? We could do that in the very similar situation of the rail franchise. Members might recall the distinguished Member of Parliament, Robert Adley, who produced what was, to my mind, one of the best Select Committee reports in my time on railway privatisation. It was published in 1993 on a Wednesday but, sadly, he died on the preceding Sunday. He forecast all the weaknesses of the privatised system. That report, from a Conservative-dominated Committee, was approved unanimously by the Committee but not accepted by the then Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

That is for the Government to say, but my understanding is that they will be devolved and that is the basis of new clause 3. Such a change took place in Scotland, where it was recommended by the Smith commission. It was agreed by the UK Government and legislated for in section 57 of the Scotland Act 2016, so if we look forward with optimism, the change will come about. The new clause would make equivalent provision for Wales. In short, there is no reason why the Railways Act’s prohibition on public sector operators should apply to Welsh Ministers.

Looking at the reality of what is happening in Wales, over the last 12 years for which financial information is available, Arriva Trains Wales accumulated profits after taxation of £149 million and paid out dividends of £134 million. An average of 91.7% of profits were paid out in dividends each year, with over 100% being paid out in three of those years. Dividends accounted for a total of 11.9% of passenger income over the 12-year period, meaning that a not-for-dividend alternative to the current fiasco could result in a similar decrease in fares.

Furthermore, public funding through franchise payments from the Welsh Assembly Government far outstripped the passenger income of Arriva Trains Wales, amounting to 160% of the passenger income figure. Alternatively, it could be said that 8% of the huge taxpayer subsidy is paid out as dividends. That makes no sense. We are subsidising dividends and not lowering fares. In summary, a saving of 8% to the taxpayer or a fare reduction of almost 12% could be delivered by adopting a public ownership or not-for-dividend model. I hope that the Government will seize hold of that bold venture

The separation of jurisdictions has been a matter of great discussion and I will not spend too much time on it as I think we are under time pressure. We have been grateful for the authoritative comments and deliberations. We are currently disinclined to support amendment 60, although we are sympathetic towards it. We were told that the Lord Chancellor and Welsh Ministers should keep the justice system under review with input from the UK Government’s proposed official working group, so we proposed the appointment of an expert panel to advise them on practical legal issues. This should be a transparent and sustained road to a solution and is also the desire of the Welsh Government. We would like to maintain the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) in the Bill’s earlier stages, but there is so much going on at the moment with Brexit and so on that it would not be sensible to make such changes. It would be rather like trying to change a car’s pistons while the engine is running, so we will not support the amendment but we understand the need for change.

[Hywel Williams]

I am genuinely curious. Is the position just outlined by the hon. Gentleman also the position of the Government in Cardiff?

[Paul Flynn]

Yes. We are working in close harmony with the Welsh Government on most of the recommendations. There is a sensible consensus between the Welsh Government, the UK Government and most parties. That is the only way forward if we are to build trust in devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he, as I am, intrigued by the Government’s opposition, because it is clearly not ideological? They are happy for a state-owned company from Germany to run railways in Wales, but not for a state-owned company, or a co-op, from Wales to run them in Wales. It feels a bit like—malice, possibly?

[Albert Owen]

I did not understand the rationale of the Government when the Secretary of State tried to explain that earlier. Not only are German national companies operating, but UK publicly owned companies have been running the east coast line through the Department for Transport. It is a logical step to allow the Welsh Government to follow the same principle in offering this opportunity to publicly owned companies for the benefit of customers.

Let us be honest about our railways: this was a privatisation too far in the 1990s. It was rushed and it has not been working. We do not have privately run companies; we have an awful lot of public money subsidising private companies from across the globe, not just from this country. The new clause asks that the Welsh Government take responsibility and that moneys—profits—that are made are not paid in dividends to large shareholders but reinvested for the good of the customers in Wales. Let us give the Welsh Government the opportunity to be bold and radical, as they have been with water, and to put passengers first.

[Hywel Williams]

I rise to speak to amendments 61 and 66.

Amendment 61 seeks to devolve Welsh language broadcasting and Welsh language media to Wales. There is currently a discrepancy in that the Welsh Government have powers over the Welsh language but no powers over S4C—Sianel Pedwar Cymru—or Welsh language media, including radio and some print media. The Welsh language media are of great cultural, economic and linguistic importance to Wales. In his report on the creative industries in Wales, Professor Ian Hargreaves argued that the level of public debate about S4C was not in line with its importance, both culturally and economically, and asked whether this was

“a consequence of the fact that S4C is funded…largely…from London”.

It is all very quiet, possibly because the money is coming from London—or was at that time, at least. Further, he said:

“The UK authorities involved (Ofcom and DCMS) lack the instinct and self-confidence to animate this uniquely Welsh debate and the Assembly Government lacks the formal mandate.”

This is the basis of my argument.

S4C and its service have endured a difficult period of financial instability following last year’s autumn statement, when the then Chancellor announced cuts to the S4C grant from £6.7 million to £5 million by 2020. The first year of those cuts has been reversed, but only the first year. Last week we were told that the BBC Trust intends to freeze S4C’s funding from now until the end of the current licence fee agreement in 2022. This was portrayed in the media as a victory for the industry, with stability achieved, but it is a cut in real terms. With the proposed review of the funding and governance of S4C, and the BBC charter up for renewal in 2017, the future of the Welsh language channel still remains mired in uncertainty. The UK Government may have an agenda to cut funding for broadcasters in the long term. That is indeed a matter for the UK Government, but why should people in Wales be bound by decisions in London regarding media platforms that, by definition, operate through the medium of one of Wales’s official languages? Of all matters, this is surely one that most clearly pertains to Wales.

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency with a number of television producers who produce television programmes for S4C. Can he name a single one who has asked for S4C to be devolved to the competency of the Welsh Assembly?

[Hywel Williams]

No, of course not. This is Plaid Cymru’s policy and this is the argument that has been made by various highly respected academic commentators, and others for that matter. [Interruption.] The Minister starts from the business end; I start from the governance end. The governance of S4C and how it should be regulated should be a matter for the Welsh Government. The argument is in the nature of the beast. It is S4C—Sianel Pedwar Cymru. It is broadcasting in Welsh in Wales: why should not the Welsh Government have responsibility? The case is unanswerable.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman is surely aware of the extraordinary genesis of S4C. If not, I would like to spend an evening with him going over the convoluted actions that took place. We have S4C because Mrs Thatcher was reading Irish history at the time when Gwynfor Evans was promising to fast to death. There was a long and honourable battle, with the sacrifices of young people in Wales, to gain S4C. We cannot complain, as a nation, about the way it has been funded since its genesis.

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely that it has been very generously funded, and funded without very much review for 25-odd years until fairly recently. [Interruption.] Indeed—and then what happened? The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am aware of the genesis of S4C. Let me say clearly that I have the conviction to prove that I am very well aware of what happened during that period. I think I had better leave it at that.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that S4C’s funding has resulted in it currently running more than 50% repeats, which is not satisfactory.

[Hywel Williams]

The television landscape has certainly changed enormously. Many broadcasters are now running a great number of repeats. The point about Welsh language television is that it has a purpose beyond just providing entertainment, or even informing or educating: it is there as part of the national project to sustain, speaking in dramatic terms, the rescue of the language.

[Guto Bebb]

I cannot allow the slur from the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) to go unresponded to. A significant proportion of the repeats on S4C are children’s programmes. As the father of five children, I am aware that the more repeats there are, the more they enjoy them.

[Hywel Williams]

Responding also as the father of five children, I would say that repeats of “Cyw” are very popular in my house.

The report of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, “The UK’s Changing Union”, called for full responsibility for S4C to be transferred to the National Assembly and thus to the Welsh Government. Plaid Cymru Members are of the firm belief that Wales should have full control over a channel that belongs to and serves the Welsh people. We should determine its future. The Secretary of State said last week that he will continue to do everything he can to ensure the channel’s continued success, and I take him at his word—I am sure that he meant it very sincerely. Conservative Members claim to have devolution at the core of their world view. “Cut out the mandarins!”, they cry. “The user”, or the customer even, “is king—take it as low as it can go—and not those dratted men in Whitehall.” If so, is not the control of a medium that serves Wales and Wales alone best placed in the hands of the people that it serves? I look forward with interest to hearing the Secretary of State justify this peculiar inconsistency on the issue.

Amendment 66 was tabled following concerns expressed to us by the Welsh Language Commissioner regarding the Bill’s potential effect on the National Assembly’s powers to legislate on matters pertaining to the Welsh language. A possible effect of schedule 2 is that should the National Assembly wish to legislate for the Welsh language, it would require the consent of the relevant UK Minister to confer, impose, modify or remove within that legislation the Welsh language functions of Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments, and other reserved authorities.

Under the current settlement, ministerial consent is required only when legislating to impose Welsh language functions on Ministers of the Crown. The ministerial consent provisions of the Wales Bill in relation to the Welsh language appear to apply to a wider range of persons than is currently the case, which would be more restrictive. I would be interested to hear the Secretary of State’s explanation or justification for that.

Let us consider a practical example. The Welsh Language Commissioner has already engaged in the statutory processes that would result in placing a duty on bodies such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Crown Prosecution Service, Ofcom and the BBC to adopt Welsh language standards. Our amendment would remove the requirement for ministerial consent for Acts of the Assembly affecting functions of reserved authorities, public authorities and Ministers where the Act of the Assembly relates to a Welsh language function. I am sure that the House will agree that that provision is fair and reasonable, given that the Welsh language is, quintessentially, a devolved issue.

[Guto Bebb]

I suspect that I can offer clarity and reassurance on this issue. There is nothing in the Bill that will affect the Welsh language retrospectively. For example, any standards imposed on a public body as a result of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 will still be imposed by the Welsh Language Commissioner, with no effect as a result of changes in this Bill. If a future Welsh Language Measure were to be proposed, then it would have an effect, but that takes us back to the issue of democratic accountability. After all, the Welsh language is not only the language of Wales; it should also be the responsibility of this House. On the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, there is nothing in the Bill that will affect the 2011 Measure and the way in which standards are imposed under it.

[Hywel Williams]

I accept that the Minister sincerely holds that view. I am reflecting on the arguments put forward by the Welsh Language Commissioner.

[Guto Bebb]

I met the Welsh Language Commissioner in August. We have subsequently written to her, highlighting the fact that the concerns raised in relation to the operation of the 2011 Measure have no grounds. In other words, the 2011 Measure is not affected by the Bill. There will be an impact if a subsequent Welsh Language Measure is passed by the Welsh Assembly, but it does not affect the way in which the legislation—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. In fairness, I let the first one go on far too long. If you do not want to sum up at the end, do not try to sum up halfway through. Interventions have to be short. There are still another three speakers to come. I am very tolerant, but I am being tested.

[Hywel Williams]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This matter will probably be addressed again when the Bill goes to another place. Perhaps we could have some discussions with the Welsh Language Commissioner in the meantime, to see whether her concerns are still justified.

[Albert Owen]

The Under-Secretary has said that the Welsh language belongs to this House as well as to the Assembly, so is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that we are unable to conduct debates through the medium of Welsh?

[Hywel Williams]

That is a very interesting and pertinent point. Welsh, of course, is a British language. I will regale the House, if I may, with a point that surprised the predecessor of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) when I made it in the House some years ago when he was having a go at me about my Welsh language enthusiasms. I told him that English is also a Welsh language, which promptly shut him up.

I will turn briefly to Government amendment 13, which removes the requirement for a statement by the Presiding Officer to be made in both Welsh and English. As has already been said, the Assembly’s legal requirements and Standing Orders already require statements to be bilingual, so the amendment removes duplication and I am glad to welcome it.

On amendments 63 to 67, amendment 1 and new clause 2, we would welcome the devolution of gambling, betting, lotteries and the associated licensing. The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) has done a great deal of work on the issue and I commend her for it. By devolving responsibility for those issues, I am sure we will be able to create solutions that really fit the needs of the people of Wales.

I hope, of course, for a complete capitulation on all those matters by the Secretary of State, but if, unaccountably, he is not that way inclined, I look forward to his comments later this evening or to whatever he would care to correspond with me about by letter. I will not, therefore, seek to divide the House.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I am pleased that this Bill has come to the House; I, too, sat through many Welsh Affairs Committee sittings. I support new clause 2 because, if agreed, it would allow the Welsh Assembly to take action on fixed odds betting terminals. I want to place on the record my membership of the newly established all-party parliamentary group on FOBTs, and my support for the comments of its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris).

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that clarification.

Plaid Cymru tried to include APD devolution in the Finance Bills of 2013 and 2014, I recall, but we did fall to some very England-centric comments by the Treasury officials at the time. These arguments have not yet satisfied us, or I imagine the 70% of the people of Wales who support the devolution of APD, as reported in recent opinion polls—as I said in Committee, that is an extremely impressive opinion poll rating.

On Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister said it was right and proper for Wales not to have the same rights regarding APD as the other devolved nations, and he has reiterated that this evening. Why would the Wales Office seek to deny Wales the same powers as Scotland and Northern Ireland? Why would it deny our only international airport in Wales the potential to use those fiscal levers to expand and develop, and why would it deny the ability of the Welsh economy to grow?

Clearly, increasing footfall at the airport would generate substantial revenues elsewhere in Wales, primarily by boosting economic performance across the whole of the economy, not least of course in the Secretary of State’s constituency, Vale of Glamorgan. Let us remember also that, as Members have said, Cardiff airport is owned by the people of Wales. The Welsh Government effectively nationalised the airport and this additional lever would further enable them to utilise a huge asset in the direct ownership of the people of Wales. It is highly regrettable that we have an airport in England, Bristol airport, effectively deciding UK policy, to the detriment of Wales.

While on the subject of Bristol airport, perhaps I should correct a statement I made in Committee, and I am happy to do so. I said Bristol airport could not accommodate long-haul flights and therefore there was no reason not to devolve long-haul APD. I received a strongly worded letter from Bristol airport—as we can imagine—a few days after the debate; it can accommodate long-haul flights. I am happy to correct the record, therefore, but what it cannot accommodate is the world’s largest aircraft, which Cardiff airport can, given the length of its runway. With the prospect of Wales being dragged out of the biggest and most successful trading bloc in the world, now, more than ever, it is important that we connect Wales to the world, and clearly devolving APD to Wales would enable the Welsh Government to do that more effectively.

New clause 7, in the names of my parliamentary colleagues and myself, seeks to equalise the situation between Wales and Scotland on VAT revenues. I will not be pressing it to a vote, due to the time left this evening. However, I remind the House that there is a consensus that devolution of public spending responsibilities should be accompanied by the assignment of significant own sources of revenue. That principle has now been accepted as this Bill progresses, and therefore the debate in Wales between the political parties is about what that fiscal package of tax powers should consistent of.

Wales’s funding framework has been highly unusual from an international perspective: there are not many Governments in the world with significant legislative and spending powers who do not also have a correspondingly important responsibility for raising tax revenues. If the UK Government are serious about securing a lasting devolution settlement for Wales, VAT should be seriously considered as part of the package of devolved fiscal powers.

The Scotland Act 2016 stated that revenues from the first 10 percentage points of the standard VAT rate would be devolved by the 2019-20 financial year. The current UK VAT rate is 20%, and half of all the VAT raised in Scotland will be kept in Scotland. A recent article published by the Wales Governance Centre confirms what I said in Committee, stating that Welsh VAT revenues have

“been far more buoyant than other major taxes, such that VAT has become the largest source of revenue in Wales.”

This is in contrast to the rest of the UK and Scotland, where income tax remains the largest source. The Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales report concluded that around £5.2 billion was raised in VAT revenue in Wales in 2014-15. A similar deal to that of Scotland would mean around £2.6 billion being assigned to the Welsh Government. This would mean that more than a third of total devolved expenditure would be financed by devolved and assigned taxes. By my calculation, that would represent an increase of about 13% compared with the amount to be raised under the current proposals.

I presume that as long as we have a Conservative Government in charge of the Treasury here, economic growth will continue to be driven by consumer spending. If that is the case, it is all the more important that the people of Wales benefit directly from that growth and from their own spending power. By devolving proportionately low revenue yielding taxes compared with the UK average, such as income tax, without devolving proportionately high revenue yielding taxes compared with the UK average, such as VAT, the UK Government are setting the tone in the Bill for an unfair and unstable fiscal position for Wales.

The devolution of VAT rates has been dismissed in the UK in the past on the ground that European Union rules prohibit the variation of VAT rates within a member state. Although we are calling only for parity with Scotland in this instance, the UK’s exit from the EU could open a debate on devolving rate-setting powers to Wales. If, as the International Trade Secretary and the Brexit Secretary seem to want, the UK does not remain part of the single market, that could open up a world of possibilities for fiscal policy. Setting VAT rates could give Welsh Ministers a powerful macroeconomic lever, and could perhaps be used in conjunction with other tax powers in considering the overall progressivity of the tax system in Wales.

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the record of Governments in London, both Labour and Conservative, is not encouraging? Under an agreement made in Helsinki in 2008, states are allowed to vary VAT down to 5% in labour-intensive industries. Were that to happen in respect of, say, tourism and construction in Wales, a huge amount of new business would be generated and the lost tax would be made up very quickly, but this Government and their predecessor did not take advantage of that dispensation. We do not need to wait for Brexit. We could make this change now, but the Government refuse to do so.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to my parliamentary leader for that intervention. Plaid Cymru has a long-standing policy to make the case at Budgets and autumn statements in this House for the lowering of the VAT level for the tourism industry in Wales. The all-party parliamentary group on the tourism and hospitality industry in Wales, chaired by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), has also called for that reduction, which would be of huge benefit to the industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), has said tonight that he will not support the new clause because the proposal was not part of the Silk commission’s recommendations. This is a classic case of the UK Government cherry-picking powers as it suits them and using the Silk commission as a justification for omission—in this case in relation to VAT—while dismissing its recommendations for the inclusion of measures on, for example, APD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

Let me begin by thanking our Bill team and our support staff for their excellent help in formulating our position. I thank Heledd Brooks-Jones, Ben O’Keefe, Rhian Medi Roberts and Osian Lewis. I also thank the large number of people in Wales, and not only Plaid members but people who are entirely impartial, who have been very generous with their advice and time. I also thank the Clerks, who have been unfailing in their courtesy and expert advice, and right hon. and hon. Member on both sides of the House. We have had a good debate and most of the time it has been extremely courteous and respectful, not least from myself of course. Lastly, I thank you, Mr Speaker, and your colleagues for expertly steering us through our discussions.

When the Wales Bill was reannounced in the Queen’s Speech, it was described as being intended as a strong and lasting devolution settlement for Wales. As it stands, the settlement presented to the House today in the Wales Bill is neither strong nor, I am afraid, likely to be lasting. My colleagues and I tabled carefully considered amendments in Committee and on Report, which would have substantially strengthened the Bill and have secured a fairer and more robust devolution package. Some of those amendments were compromises on our part for the sake of progressing the devolution agenda. Quite logically, we have always argued that the cross-party Silk recommendations need to be realised as a bare minimum. I am afraid the Government have not succeeded in doing that and have been open to accusations of cherry-picking its recommendations as and when it suits them.

I say “bare minimum” because Silk is rapidly becoming out of date anyway. The powers devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Act 2016 have to a large extent superseded Silk, and while the Government are granting incentivising powers to Holyrood, Wales is left lacking in accountability and without the necessary levers over our economy. The biggest external impact on Wales is the constitutional settlement. However, there will of course be Brexit. I would argue that this Wales Bill was almost redundant from the day the people of the UK were persuaded by the chimera of absolute sovereignty, a massive diversion of Government spending and above all drastic cuts to immigration. When the people decided to leave the EU, they largely voted to gain control. That is what we heard—“Give us our country back. We want control.” It is only logical to demand that this appetite for increased accountability and transparency is replicated in the debates surrounding devolution to Wales.

As the Department for Exiting the European Union struggles and starts to untangle the mountain of legislation tied to EU laws and directives, decisions will have to be made about the repatriation of powers. The Government must not use Brexit as a power-grabbing exercise. Powers repatriated to the UK must be devolved to Wales and the Barnett formula must be revised to reflect adequately the changing nature of devolution. We are in a period of great economic uncertainty and Wales needs to renew its fiscal levers to be able to grasp the problem, to close the prosperity gap which already exists and to ensure that the instability of Brexit does not impact on the jobs and livelihoods of people in Wales.

Announcements on the boundary review are imminent —some of us will have had a sneak preview today—and the number of MPs from Wales is likely to be significantly reduced. This also must surely lead to greater responsibility and power being transferred to the National Assembly. This Wales Bill does not sufficiently address the democratic deficit we are likely to face.

This Bill has been rushed—perhaps “rushed” is too strong a word, but it has been brought through Parliament, in the end, rather quickly. It appears from our side at least to be something of a pig’s ear—unsatisfactory. It has been criticised by others as well. The leading academic Richard Wyn Jones from the Wales Governance Centre used, in that wonderful academic way, the damning word “patronising”, which holds a wealth of meaning.

It seems to have become an established pattern for successive Secretaries of State to claim to be legislating for a generation, only to see their handiwork substantially revised within four or five years. It looks as if this Bill will most definitely be revised, and possibly much sooner than in four or five years. Circumstances have changed. The main Opposition—with concerns of their own internal strife, unfortunately—have at times been absent during the scrutiny of the Bill. The exception of course is the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and I pay warm tribute to his efforts to ensure that the Bill received the proper scrutiny. However, half-hearted and confused calls from the Welsh Labour Government for further powers have fallen largely on deaf ears here in London. It has been Plaid Cymru’s fate to try to defend our best interests and to demand a truly robust devolution settlement that will determine our course for decades to come, but I am afraid that we are still waiting for that final settlement.

The hon. Member for Newport West quoted “Alun Mabon”, the heroic poem by John Ceiriog Hughes, the superstar of Welsh poetry in the Victorian era. It repays close study by those of us who speak Welsh. I am not trying to trump the hon. Gentleman, but I would like to add to the point he was making about the Welsh language by expressing the passionate feelings that I have about it. I thought I would quote the French writer, Alphonse Daudet, who also lived in the 19th century. He wrote a short story not long after the Franco-Prussian war, when Alsace had been invaded and its culture had been changed. The only translation I have is the Welsh one:

“Pan syrth pobl yn gaethion, cyhyd ag y cadwant eu hiaith y mae fel pe dalient allwedd eu carchar.”

This translates as “When the people fall into captivity, so long as they keep their language it is as if they hold the key to their prison.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

There were many campaigns for a Barnett floor but it was only this Government who delivered on that. On European funds, we have not yet concluded our negotiating position, but simply replacing what are currently EU funds with another source from Westminster misses the point: the EU referendum sent out a number of messages, and those areas that receive most EU funds were the areas, sadly, that voted most strongly to leave the EU. We need to look at models of regional aid in a different way.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The debate on our future in the EU was very badly informed. Will the Secretary of State convene an independent inquiry to identify, quantify and publish the losses, and indeed any benefits, to Wales from leaving the EU and the steps he can take, within his powers, to safeguard our national interest?

[Alun Cairns]

A European Union unit is being set up in Whitehall, which will consider all the implications for my right hon. Friend the next Prime Minister in order to form judgments and direct Government policy, but we must recognise that if any country can make a success of leaving the EU it is the United Kingdom, with its proud history as a global trading nation.

[Hywel Williams]

I did ask about the Secretary of State’s Department. Anyway, I am concerned about the loss of common agricultural policy and convergence funding, and of research moneys to universities, and about the lost opportunities for young people to live, work and study abroad. But also, being Welsh and European, I feel the closing of our horizons towards a parochial little Britainism. What more can he do to ensure the future of our Welsh cultural London bypass to the rest of our continent?

[Alun Cairns]

I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s question. He will understand that I have a close working relationship with the Welsh Government and with the First Minister in particular. What is in Wales’s interest is in the United Kingdom’s interest, and I am determined to do everything possible to maintain that positive relationship as we negotiate to leave the European Union.

Wales Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I am very happy to record that. It is also worth mentioning that Tryweryn was opposed by every Welsh Member of this House. That opposition was not confined to any one group or party, although there were certain people who led it, as my hon. Friend has suggested. I look back with pride to the time when Labour MPs and peers took part in the early days of establishing a Welsh identity, particularly in the north Wales area. We had a large number of Welsh-speaking Labour MPs here, and they could only dream about a day like today when we are passing the legislation that their generation sadly failed to do, even though they and organisations such as Cymru Fydd were full of high hopes. We are now taking these steps forward, and the dreams of past generations are being fulfilled and honoured.

The scope of the Assembly’s legislative competence in this field is interesting. The Welsh Government are seeking full devolution of water and sewerage to be aligned with the geographical boundary with England, as set out in the Silk report and the UK Government’s St David’s day Command Paper. A joint Governments water and sewerage devolution programme board was set up following the publication of the St David’s day paper to consider the alignment of legislative competence with the national border. The programme focused on the impact on consumers and engaged with the regulator, consumer representatives, the water companies and both Governments. The work of the programme has now concluded, and I understand that the evidence confirms that these changes can be achieved with minimal impact on the consumers of water and sewerage services, so legislative competence for water should be aligned with the national border.

I shall take this opportunity to mention the related aspects of policy on water, including new clause 10 and the amendments to clause 44. Clause 44 would amend section 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 by adding to the grounds on which the Secretary of State can intervene to prevent the Presiding Officer from submitting an Assembly Bill for Royal Assent. Section 114 currently allows such intervention if, inter alia, the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the Bill contains provisions which might have a seriously adverse impact on water resources, supply or quality in England. The Wales Bill would add to this by allowing intervention if a Bill might have a seriously adverse impact on sewerage services or systems in England.

In the view of the Welsh Government, with which I totally agree, the intervention power in respect of water should be replaced by a memorandum of understanding between the Welsh and UK Governments on how cross-border water issues should be managed. This was also the view of the Silk commission, which recommended that

“a formal intergovernmental protocol should be established in relation to cross-border issues”.

It also recommended that

“the Secretary of State’s existing legislative and executive powers of intervention in relation to water should be removed in favour of mechanisms under the inter-governmental protocol”.

It follows that the Welsh Government are opposed to the proposed extension by clause 44 of these intervention powers to sewerage, and would also wish to see sections 114 and 152 of the 2006 Act amended to remove these intervention powers in relation to water.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned sections 114 and 152. I should like to draw to his attention our amendment 81, which I hope will be debated later and which I hope to press to a vote. It would remove those sections from the legislation. I do not want to pre-empt the debate now, but I want to give him fair warning that we will be taking that stance, which would achieve precisely the end that he has just described.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. We agree with many of the amendments that he and his party have tabled, although we want to have further consultations on some of them. The speed at which the Bill is going through—although very agreeable—means that we have not yet consulted certain groups or individuals. We might not support the hon. Gentleman’s amendments in the Lobby, but we agree with a great many of them. However, we hope to divide the Committee on our amendment 123 later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I will speak briefly to amendment 161 in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies). It would amend schedule 1 to the Bill by reserving the setting of speed limits in Wales and the design of road and traffic signs. The whole purpose of devolution should be to make life not more difficult but easier. We will be debating a great many practical amendments to the Bill this evening and this is one where the practical purpose of devolution would be better served by reserving such competences.

Dealing first with speed limits, I strongly suggest that it would be highly counterproductive for speed limits to differ between England and Wales because the road systems of England and Wales are closely integrated. Every day, many thousands of commuters travel backwards and forwards across the border. At certain times of year, such as holiday periods, there are considerable numbers of visitors from other parts of the United Kingdom and the continent of Europe. Such people are not confined to the principal arterial routes of the M4 and the A55, because several other important routes—going both east to west and north to south—cross the border. I am particularly thinking of the A483, the principal route between Manchester and Swansea that crosses and re-crosses the border at several points, and the A490, another well-known border route. To have different national speed limits at distances of possibly every two or three miles would be at the very least confusing and at the very worst positively dangerous.

The context of England and Wales is different from the context of England and Scotland because the integration of the road network between England and Wales is far closer. Given the practicalities, it makes no sense whatsoever to devolve the setting of speed limits to Cardiff.

[Hywel Williams]

I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with considerable interest. Is he saying that motorists are unable to cope with speed limit changes that are signalled by appropriate signs? I know of a stretch of road in my constituency where the limit goes from 40 mph to 30 mph to 20 mph and then back to 30 mph and then 40 mph over a distance of about a mile.

[Mr Jones]

I think it is fair to say exactly that; the hon. Gentleman will remember the former chief constable of North Wales who generated substantial funds out of motorists’ inattention to speed limits. My point is not so much about local speed limits but about national speed limits. It is far more sensible if the national speed limit is set by the Department for Transport in London—if necessary, in consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government. Given that there is such a closely integrated main transport road network between the two nations, it makes no sense to have differential speed limits.

The second point I wish to make is about road signs and I do so principally on the same grounds; as we have such a closely integrated road network, there is the potential to cause considerable difficulty if the Welsh Government were to decide, for whatever reason, completely to redesign road signs. Again, that would be not only confusing, but positively dangerous. The competence for the design of road signs should remain with the DfT in London, although there should be consultation with the Welsh Government.

[Hywel Williams]

Is the right hon. Gentleman’s contention based on any research? I recall, and so will he, the extensive debate in Wales about having Welsh language road signs or bilingual signs. Research was done on various aspects of that, by the Road Research Laboratory, the AA and various people, and they predicted all kinds of doom should we have bilingual signs. Can he point us to any similar research on road signs or differential speed limits?

[Mr Jones]

I have no objection whatever to bilingual road signs—they should be positively encouraged. This is not so much about the language as about the design of the signage. Most of our road signs follow standard European norms, although they may not in the future. If we are to have consistency and avoid danger to motorists, we should have consistency in the design of road signage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

Does my hon. Friend not think it scandalous that there is no provision for women prisoners in Wales? There are very few women prisoners, but they are held in England in Styal and in Eastwood Park outside Gloucester. That causes problems for prisoners’ families, particularly from the west of Wales.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Indeed. We are aware that in the north that there is no prison for women or for young offenders. There are many steps afoot, which are to be welcomed, to improve how women who enter the criminal justice system are treated in Wales, alongside imprisonment. HMP Styal is a long way from people’s homes and there must be a better way to deal with offenders’ families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

Although I have misgivings about a number of elements of this Bill, I wish to speak very briefly on amendment 161, which addresses the proposed transfer of powers over national speed limits from Westminster to Cardiff Bay. I have already spoken about this issue during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Welsh Affairs Committee and also at the Welsh Grand Committee.

To be clear, the power to set specific speed limits, such as 20 mph zones outside schools, or 40 mph or 50 mph zones as preferred for reasons of safety, quite rightly already lies with local authorities and the Welsh Assembly Government. As it stands, the Wales Bill proposes transferring powers over national speed limits. Those include 30 mph speed limits in built-up areas and 60 mph limits in non-built-up areas, and of course a 70 mph limit on dual carriageways and motorways. In my mind, those are etched on the brains of all of us via the Highway Code, and, in the absence of any signage, they are usually clear, based on the type of road.

We all live on a small island, and more than 200 roads straddle the England and Wales border. In the case of many smaller roads, the border is not, at present, marked by any signage at all. In some cases, the border cuts across housing estate roads, or even runs lengthwise along roads and splits them in half. Roads across the UK are essentially subject to the same safety criteria as vehicles. Taking all that into account, it is clear to me that the prospect of additional different national speed limits in England and Wales simply would be neither desirable nor realistic.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman describes the complexity of the border in some areas, but does he have no confidence in the Welsh Assembly to administer different speed limits sensibly?

[Dr Davies]

It is perfectly possible that it can be done, but I just do not see the point. It would create extra confusion, and there would be a plethora of signs at the border where currently there is none. There would also have to be a huge information exercise, which would, in many cases, fail to get to the users of those roads.

Welsh devolution was meant to improve the lives of people, but it is very difficult to see how the devolution of a national speed limit, among other items in the Bill, would bring that about. It surely needs to be accepted that this is a matter most sensibly overseen at UK level. I respectfully urge the Government to reconsider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

The Secretary of State says with a flourish and extreme confidence that the list of reservations is sensible. If so, why is he so reticent about publishing his reasoning? He asserts, but he does not explain.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I am happy to continue open dialogues. As Secretary of State, that is the style I have sought to use, to build on that set by my predecessor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to continue working in such an open and constructive way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

I agreed with most of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do not think he listened to what I said. I am talking specifically about wind energy, to which my amendment relates, not about hydro-energy, off-coast energy or land energy.

I ask the Secretary of State to retain the possibility of a veto. I will not press the amendment to a vote—I am sure that you and many others will be delighted to hear that, Sir Alan—but I hope that the Secretary of State will look at the clause again.

[Hywel Williams]

I want to speak to amendments 74 to 80, 81 and 82, 151 and 154, which I tabled along with my hon. Friends.

I welcome clauses 22, 23 and 24, which confer competence on Welsh Ministers in relation to onshore petroleum licensing, including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, about which the Welsh people care a great deal. If the people of Wales do not want fracking, our Government should be able to ensure that it does not happen. Given that the Welsh Government and the National Assembly as a whole voted unanimously against fracking in Wales, I hope that the Secretary of State will work with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that until the Bill is passed, the United Kingdom Government honour that unanimous opposition in Wales and no new licences are issued there. I hope that, at the end of the debate, either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will give some indication that that will be the case.

I also welcome clause 26. Some time ago, I had a meeting with the traffic commissioner for Wales, who was based in Birmingham at the time. He was very unhappy about being traffic commissioner for Wales, and pointed out that not only did he work from Birmingham, but he lived in Derby, which is a considerable distance from Wales. Many years ago, the Welsh Affairs Committee called for the commissioner to be moved to Cardiff, and I am glad that the clause achieves a great deal more than that.

Amendments 74 and 75, and consequential amendments 76 to 80, would remove the 350 MW limit on the Welsh Government’s legislative competence in the field of energy. I would happily put a fiver on what is on the Under-Secretary of State’s notepad: my guess is that he intends to say that the limit was recommended by the Silk commission. I wish I had put that fiver down, because I see that the Under-Secretary is smiling.

Of course I accept that the Silk commission recommended the limit, but let us return for a moment to the purpose and the terms of the commission. It was set up by the coalition Government, with a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales. It consisted of one nominee from each of the four main parties at the time, including the Secretary of State’s and mine, along with various academic and other experts. It consulted widely and extensively with the political parties, civic society, academia and industry experts, as well as the public. Its two reports represented a consensus, reflecting not only the views of the political parties but, crucially, those of the public and of experts—that is, the views of civic society in general.

With that purpose in mind, the players in all four political parties had to compromise, and all four—including the Secretary of State’s party and mine—did so, in order to achieve a national consensus. That was a contrast with the St David’s day process, in which I played a minor part. At the time, the Secretary of State appeared to hand a veto to each party in respect of what it wished to reject. Labour used its veto to the full, which reflected the stance of the then shadow Secretary of State, as a self-confessed “proud Unionist”. It seemed to me that the veto extended to Whitehall Departments, in terms of which matters they wanted to reserve.

As was clear from my earlier intervention on the Secretary of State, I am still slightly unconvinced about this process—

[Alun Cairns]

rose—

[Hywel Williams]

I will gladly give way to him.

[Alun Cairns]

What example has there been of devolution to Wales in the past where the Secretary of State has really sought to bring about agreement throughout the House on a pragmatic, practical way forward, rather than bulldozing one particular model over another?

[Hywel Williams]

I was very glad to play a minor part in the St David’s day process, as was my colleague at the time, Elfyn Llwyd. I think there was a structural deficiency in that process, in that if individual parties wanted to veto a particular matter, they could do so—fine: that was what the process was about—but, to my mind at least, one party made rather a meal of that dispensation, and vetoed a great deal that could quite reasonably have been included. The criticism of the first draft of the Bill reflects that, but the current version is a great improvement, and I am happy to pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his predecessor for their achievement.

Some parties compromised on policing, and some on broadcasting. My party compromised on energy. We have always believed that Wales’s natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Wales, and that the people of Wales are best placed to make decisions about how best to put those resources to use. That is our historic stance. We have never believed in placing a limit on that principle, above which the people of Wales should no longer have a say. We never thought that that was a good idea, and never thought that it was necessary. However, we compromised, for the good of the Silk process and to ensure good order and progress. We agreed to the arbitrary limit of 350 MW in return for the support of others on policing and broadcasting.

The Secretary of State has chosen not to follow that consensual path, and to pick and choose from the Silk Commission’s recommendations which matters to accept and which to forgo. Indeed, he has chosen to ignore the majority of what Silk had to say. He cannot now reasonably defend that Westminster power grab and attack Plaid Cymru by claiming that he is only following the commission’s recommendations. We shall see what the Under-Secretary of State has to say about that one.

Clause 36 must be understood as it stands. Having voted to give Scotland complete control over its natural resources, with no limits, the Secretary of State is proposing to devolve energy in Wales only up to a limit of 350 MW, with anything above that threshold being reserved to Westminster. Why does he believe that Scottish natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Scotland, but Wales’s natural resources, above the limit, should be deemed to be the preserve of Westminster? Does he think that the people of Wales cannot be trusted with any energy projects above 350 MW? Do we suffer from some congenital infirmity in that respect? For that matter, why should it be 350 MW rather than 351, or 349? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will enlighten us. What factual evidence has he to justify that figure?

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) referred to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. It is proposed that the lagoon should be devolved to Wales, but that the proposed Cardiff and Colwyn Bay tidal lagoons, which are identical apart from scale, should be reserved to Westminster. What is the rhyme or reason for that? What practical reasons are there for such a distinction?

Let me give another practical example. In my constituency, there is a great capacity for hydro-electric power. The Dinorwig scheme, which has been mentioned, is a massive scheme that can power Manchester for five hours at the throw of a switch. It takes eight seconds for the turbines to start turning. It is an astonishing scheme, which I think is one of the great energy production secrets of Wales. I understand that the switch is thrown in Connah’s Quay and not in London, and that it controls not only Dinorwig but the Stwlan facility in Blaenau Ffestiniog, as well as Maentwrog. So here we have an astonishingly good scheme and the potential for several more, some of the same scale but also some smaller ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

Perhaps this is a mischievous point, but may I ask the Minister this: if 350MW and over is “strategic”, was 50MW and over strategic in the past? If so, what has changed?

[Guto Bebb]

It should be stated that a former Secretary of State for Wales and former leader of this party had long argued that there was a need to look at a higher limit. It is fair to say that the process of devolution is an ongoing one, and it is highly unreasonable to criticise the fact that we are moving towards a situation where very large developments of hydro power in north Wales could be decided upon in Cardiff.

Wales Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I will speak in favour of amendments 9, 7 and 10. It is always a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to the Front Bench. He follows in a fine tradition of octogenarians serving in the Labour Front-Bench team. The one who sprang to my mind was Lord Addison, who left the Attlee Government in 1951 at the age of 82. I am sure that in my hon. Friend we have a fine 21st century successor to Lord Addison. When I first came to this House, I thoroughly enjoyed reading my hon. Friend’s book “How to be an MP”; I look forward to the sequel, “How to be a Front Bencher”.

I will speak on the issue of a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about the wording of amendment 5. When the Wales Bill still contained the vast number of necessity tests that it did, there was a more powerful argument for a separate legal jurisdiction, but now that the necessity tests have been all but removed, save in two very specific circumstances, I do not think that any urgency for that remains. That allows us the chance to move forward far more pragmatically.

We have to be absolutely clear about the consequences of having a separate legal jurisdiction. I should say that prior to coming to this House I spent 11 years as a practising barrister in Cardiff and am still a door tenant, though non-practising, at Civitas Law. I have looked at situations where the permission of the court would be required to serve outside the jurisdiction—in other words, an additional barrier to access to justice would exist—if there was a separate legal jurisdiction. The list includes interim remedies, contracts, claims in tort, enforcement, claims about property within jurisdiction, trusts, claims by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, claim for costs order in favour of, or against, third parties, admiralty claims, claims under various enactments, and claims for breach of confidence or misuse of private information. All those areas would require permission to serve outside the jurisdiction. That may have been rather a legal list, but let us think of its practical consequences. For example, let us suppose a constituent from Torfaen goes to Bristol and falls over. They will be put in a complicated legal position.

Health is also a cross-border issue. If someone who lives in Wales crosses the border for treatment, there will be complications in cases of medical negligence. When people from Wales drive to London on the M4 and if they have an accident on the other side of the Severn bridge, that will have suddenly taken place in a different jurisdiction. If someone buys a washing machine or some other product from England, consumer protection law will cause complications for someone in Wales who is seeking a remedy for a problem.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

In his research, has the hon. Gentleman come across figures for how many cases are held in Wales compared with the number of cross-border cases?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

At the moment, anyone who issues a claim would have a choice about where to issue it. For example, when I practised in Cardiff, it was easy for me to issue something to my client in Bristol if I wanted to, so in a sense those statistics do not really add any meaning to my argument. Companies would have an element of uncertainty introduced to their business if they were to trade on a cross-border basis—the last thing I want is for Offa’s Dyke to become an additional barrier to access to justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I am not saying what the hon. Gentleman fears I am saying. I can reassure him on that. The power to move things by a month already exists. It just happens to be vested in the Secretary of State. All we are seeking to do here, as part of the St David’s day agreement and following the principles set out in it, is to devolve that power from the Secretary of State to Welsh Ministers. We are not seeking to change the power in one direction or another; we are just making sure that it is being exercised more locally in Cardiff rather in than Westminster. It continues to be legally the case that the Assembly elections and the UK parliamentary elections cannot happen on the same day, so it would only be a question of moving some of these elections around in that case—although there might be other reasons why one might want to—if at some point, many decades hence, an accident of the diary meant that the two happened to coincide. In order to comply with the constraint, they cannot happen on the same day and one would have to move, whereupon this power would apply.

I was talking about the online voter registration system and the way that that needs to be adjusted, if it is to be adjusted, by mutual consent. As I said, the Assembly is free to decide on the franchise and the registration process for Assembly elections, but as a practical matter, where the Welsh Government want changes to the Great Britain-wide Digital Service, they will need the approval of UK Ministers to do so. That is because the Digital Service is a series of interconnecting digital applications, including online voter registration, for people living in England, Wales and Scotland, as well as British citizens resident overseas. We all need to ensure that any changes to the franchise or registration process for Welsh Assembly and local government elections in Wales do not adversely impact on voters in other parts of the UK or abroad.

With these considerations in mind, the clause allows Welsh Ministers to make regulations concerning the Digital Service in relation to Assembly and local government elections in Wales with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown.

[Hywel Williams]

I apologise to the Committee for my voice today. My daughter Enlli came back from nursery the other day with a slight tickle, and that has led to world war three breaking out in my larynx, unfortunately.

My hon. Friends and I support the motion that clauses 5, 6 and 7 stand part of the Bill, preferably along with our amendments 28 to 31 to clause 6. These are probing amendments and I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s response.

As the Assembly has grown in competence, it is reasonable that the power over the timing of its own elections, as well as powers over the conduct of those elections and the registration of electors, should be devolved. Any ambitious democratic body would surely seek such powers. The amendments in this group, as Members on both sides of the Committee will be aware, were originally drafted and published by the office of the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly. In a letter dated 30 June, the Presiding Officer set out that the aim of this set of amendments is to

“deliver a constitutional settlement that is workable, clear and provides a firm foundation for the Assembly’s future.”

She noted in the same letter that these amendments were informed by evidence given during pre-legislative scrutiny of the previous draft Wales Bill to the then Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, and were equally informed by the Assembly’s experience of working under the current settlement.

Amendments 28 to 31 would transfer the power to vary the date of an ordinary general election, as well as the power to fix the date of extraordinary Assembly elections, from the Secretary of State directly to the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly, rather than to Welsh Ministers. The amendments are underpinned by the principle that the Assembly should have powers over its own internal affairs.

It is worth pointing out, as the context, that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 set a precedent for moving decision making over the administration of elections away from the Government. Our amendments in this group, though probing, have this same underlying principle at their root—that is, that powers over determining the date of Assembly elections should be moved away from the Government. To our mind, this power should not be conferred on the Executive, so as to remove the possibility of any accusations of political interference. Were this change to be made by our amendments, it would add to the competence and responsibility of the legislature, which should surely be welcomed by all parties. It would also increase public confidence in the independent nature of election management in Wales.

As drafted, the Bill transfers the power to vary the date of an ordinary Assembly general election from the Secretary of State to Welsh Ministers. This is in contrast to the system operated in Scotland, whereby this power is bestowed on the Presiding Officer. Amendment 28 would put the Welsh Assembly’s arrangements on the same footing. Amendment 29 relates to conferring powers over varying the date of an ordinary general election. Although the Bill devolves powers over electoral arrangements, it does so in an unnecessarily impractical way.

[John Penrose]

Can the hon. Gentleman expand on his thinking about why those changes would be helpful? There are different approaches, as he will appreciate. Does he believe that there is anything unclear about the criteria that must be satisfied under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as to whether a majority has been achieved in an Assembly or Parliament, or does he have other concerns about potential political game playing? Does he believe that the measure might put the Presiding Officer in a politically contentious position?

[Hywel Williams]

I have considered that, and it is my opinion and that of the Presiding Officer that it would not put her in that difficult position. These amendments are hers, after consideration. The point about parity and similarity with Scotland is persuasive, to our minds.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Is it not the case that under the Bill as drafted, the Welsh Government could act unilaterally if they so decided, whereas if the spirit of the amendments were accepted, adapted by the Government and incorporated in the Bill, the power would reside with the Presiding Officer, but only with the support of the legislature, which means that there would have to be cross-party support before she acted?

[Hywel Williams]

I take my hon. Friend’s point entirely. The four Assembly elections held so far have not produced a majority Government, so the consent of the Assembly collectively would be required in that situation. I am not casting any aspersions on the motives of Governments in Cardiff, London or anywhere else, but the amendment would remove any suspicion of political advantage being sought.

By adding a strict seven-day timeframe, during which period the Assembly must meet and elect a Presiding Officer, the Bill once again puts Wales on an unequal footing with Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is allowed 14 days to carry out this function. Given the history of the outcomes of elections to our Assembly, as I said a moment ago, and the obvious consequence that time has been required for the parties to discuss all manner of arrangements, seven days for this particular exercise seems unreasonable. That is why amendment 29 extends this period to 14 days for the Welsh Assembly.

Amendment 30 amends the Government of Wales Act 2006 so as to confer powers over varying the date of an ordinary general election to the Presiding Officer, as opposed to transferring this power directly to Welsh Ministers under the Bill as currently drafted. Finally, amendment 31 amends the 2006 Act so as to ensure that powers over proposing the date of an extraordinary general election are given to the Presiding Officer. The amendment once again extends the timeframe during which the Assembly is required to meet following an election to 14 days, thus establishing parity with Scotland.

These amendments are meant to probe and promote discussion. We do not intend to press them to a vote.

[John Penrose]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for laying out his case so clearly and so helpfully. He is right to point out that the provisions in the Bill seek to mimic the existing provisions to which his four amendments relate and to devolve the existing arrangements from the Secretary of State down to Welsh Ministers. However, he is also right to point out that this is not quite the same thing as has already happened in the parallel situation in Scotland, where the powers were devolved not to Scottish Ministers but to the Presiding Officer. We therefore already have in British constitutional arrangements two parallel but subtly different approaches.

The reason I asked my question of the hon. Gentleman is that there are competing views on this issue. I am not sure that either is necessarily automatically better or worse than the other, but there are different strengths and weaknesses, and different pros and cons, to both. Some people are concerned that devolving these powers to the Presiding Officer could put them in a politically contentious position. I do not think that that is the view of the Scottish Presiding Officer, the Welsh Presiding Officer or many politicians in the Welsh Assembly, but some people would certainly cleave to it—perhaps here, for example.

Equally, the question is whether the criteria that have to be satisfied for a fixed-term Parliament to be altered in length and for an early, extraordinary election to be called, are clear. For example, for this Parliament, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act says that we either have to have a Government who cannot command a majority and who, over two weeks, have failed to find one, or we have a two-thirds majority. Those are fairly clear criteria, so there is relatively little opportunity for political game-playing, either by Ministers or a Presiding Officer.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

If the hon. Gentleman is not already in his party’s Whips Office, he probably should be, because that is a proper Whips Office wheeze. Were such a thing legally possible—I defer to others to decide whether it would be—I do not think it would pass the test of democratic credibility. Any Government who sought to precipitate their own downfall through that kind of mechanism—voting against themselves and saying they were not competent—would, as a practical matter, probably be judged quite harshly by voters in the polls. However, I appreciate that we are talking about theoretical circumstances, and we will have to leave that issue to the future to decide.

The point I was trying to make is that there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and both systems—one here, and one in Scotland—already persist quite happily side by side in British constitutional arrangements, and the question is now being raised in relation to the Welsh Assembly. I do not want to say that one system is inherently legitimate or illegitimate, or that one is necessarily better or worse than the other. It has to be a question of what is acceptable to local decision makers—in this case, Assembly Members and their officials in the Welsh Assembly.

We are therefore sympathetic to taking this issue away and thinking about it carefully. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it, and he makes a thought-provoking case. If he agrees, I would be happy to take his amendments away—I think he indicated they were probing amendments—to see whether we can take this issue forward or at least develop his ideas and thinking a little further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Super-majority requirement for certain legislation

[Hywel Williams]

I beg to move amendment 32, page 10, line 3, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

The amendment removes the requirements on the face of the Bill for the National Assembly for Wales’ Standing Orders to include requirements for the publication of a statement in Welsh and English.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.

Amendment 33, in clause 12, page 12, line 24, at end insert—

“(a) for a sum paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund not to be applied for any purpose other than that for which it was charged or (as the case may be) paid out”.

The amendment sets out that Welsh legislation must provide that the Assembly has to authorise any drawing from the Consolidated Fund and that such funds can only be utilised for the purposes for which they were authorised.

Clauses 12 to 14 stand part.

Amendment 38, in clause 15, page 14, line 3, leave out “translation of references” and insert “consequential provision”.

The amendment replaces “translation of references” with “consequential provision”, to reflect the overall effect of Clause 15.

Amendment 39, page 14, line 5, at end insert—

“( ) Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru,”.

The amendment clarifies that any references in legislation, instruments and documents to “Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru” is also to be read as a reference to the new name, in Welsh.

Amendment 40, page 14, line 6, at end insert—

“( ) Comisiwn Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru,”.

The amendment clarifies that any references in legislation, instruments and documents to “Comisiwn Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru” is also to be read as a reference to the new name, in Welsh.

Amendment 41, page 14, line 7, at end insert—

“( ) Deddfau Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru, or”.

The amendment clarifies that any references in legislation, instruments and documents to “Deddfau Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru” is also to be read as a reference to the new name, in Welsh.

Amendment 42, page 14, line 11, after “to”, insert “Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru,”.

The amendment provides that if the Assembly changes its name then any reference in legislation, instruments and documents to the “Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru” is to be read as a reference to the new name.

Amendment 43, page 14, line 12, after first “Wales,” insert “Comisiwn Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru,”.

The amendment provides that if the Assembly changes its name then any reference in legislation, instruments and documents to the “Comisiwn Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru” is to be read as a reference to the new name.

Amendment 44, page 14, line 12, after “Commission,” insert “, Deddfau Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru”.

The amendment provides that if the Assembly changes its name then any reference in legislation, instruments and documents to “Deddfau Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru” is to be read as a reference to the new name.

Amendment 45, page 14, line 17, after “name”, insert

“in Welsh or English (as the case may be).”

The amendment clarifies that the clause applies to any new names listed in the clause be they in English or Welsh.

Clauses 15 and 16 stand part.

Amendment 14, in clause 17, page 15, leave out lines 29 to 31.

This amendment and amendment 15 make provision for the definition of devolved competence in Clause 17 to be applied for the purpose of the amendments made to Clause 19 by amendment 13.

Amendment 15, page 15, line 35, at end insert—

“( ) In this section and section 58B ‘within devolved competence’ and ‘outside devolved competence’ are to be read in accordance with subsections (7) and (8); but for the purposes of section 58AB no account is to be taken of the requirement to consult the appropriate Minister in paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 7B.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 14.

Clauses 17 and 18 stand part.

Amendment 13, in clause 19, page 17, line 27, at end insert—

“(2) After section 58A of that Act (inserted by section 17(1) of this Act) insert—

‘58B Transfer of functions within devolved competence

(1) Functions conferred on a Minister of the Crown by virtue of any pre-commencement enactment or pre-commencement prerogative instrument, so far as they are exercisable within devolved competence by a Minister of the Crown, are to be exercisable by the Welsh Ministers instead of a Minister of the Crown.

(2) Provision for a Minister of the Crown to exercise a function with the agreement of, or after consultation with, any other Minister of the Crown ceases to have effect in relation to the exercise of the function by a member of the Welsh Government by virtue of subsection (1).

(3) In this section “pre-commencement enactment” means—

(a) an Act passed before or in the same session as this Act and any other enactment made before the passing of this Act;

(b) an enactment made, before the commencement of this section, under such an Act or such other enactment; “pre-commencement prerogative instrument” means a prerogative instrument made before or during the session in which this Act was passed.’”

Clause 19 makes provision about transfer of Ministerial functions. The amendment provides for the transfer of all functions currently exercisable by Ministers of the Crown within devolved competence to the Welsh Ministers.

Clause 19 stand part.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 16, in clause 20, page 18, line 8, at end insert—

“(ab) section 58B,”.

Clause 20 amends the power in section 58 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 to make provision by Order in Council for the transfer of functions to the Welsh Ministers to authorise provision to be made in respect of “previously transferred functions”. This amendment extends the definition of “previously transferred functions” to include functions transferred by the general transfer proposed by amendment 13.

Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.

New clause 2—Welsh thresholds for income tax—

“(1) Part 4A of the Government Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 116A(1)(a) (overview), after ‘of’ insert ‘and thresholds for’.

(3) After section 116D insert—

‘116DA Power to set Welsh thresholds for Welsh taxpayers

(1) The Assembly may by resolution (a “Welsh threshold resolution”) set one or more of the following—

(a) a Welsh threshold for the Welsh basic rate,

(b) a Welsh threshold for the Welsh higher rate,

(c) a Welsh threshold for the Welsh additional rate.

(2) A Welsh threshold resolution applies—

(a) for only one tax year, and

(b) for the whole of that year.

(3) A Welsh threshold resolution—

(a) must specify the tax year for which it applies,

(b) must be made before the start of that tax year, and

(c) must not be made more than 12 months before the start of that year.

(4) If a Welsh threshold resolution is cancelled before the start of the tax year for which it is to apply—

(a) the Income Tax Acts have effect for that year as if the resolution had never been made, and

(b) the resolution may be replaced by another Welsh threshold resolution.

(5) The standing orders must provide that only the First Minister or a Welsh Minister appointed under section 48 may move a motion for a Welsh threshold resolution.’”

This new clause would allow the National Assembly for Wales to determine the income thresholds at which income tax is payable by Welsh taxpayers.

New clause 3—Income tax receipts—

“(1) Section 120 (destination of receipts) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General must certify for each tax year that Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs have transferred the full amount of income tax paid by Welsh taxpayers in that tax year into the Welsh Consolidated Fund.”

This new clause would require the receipts from income tax paid by Welsh taxpayers to be paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund.

[Hywel Williams]

I rise to speak to amendments 32, 33 and 38 to 45. My hon. Friends will seek to catch your eye later, Sir Alan, to speak on the aspects that concern them. I also wish to speak to clause 18 stand part.

Amendment 32 is a technical amendment. Clause 8 provides that Assembly legislation dealing with certain protected matters—the name of the Assembly, who is entitled to vote at Assembly elections, the voting system and so on—would require a super-majority of the Assembly. It requires the Presiding Officer to decide whether an Assembly Bill relates to a protected matter and to state that decision, and I do not disagree with any of that.

However, the clause then requires that that statement be in both English and Welsh and that the form of that statement be dealt with in the Assembly’s Standing Orders. While we agree that such statements should be made in both languages, amendment 32, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends, would remove those two provisions. It does that for two reasons. First, including them is at odds with much of the rest of the Bill, which recognises the Assembly as a mature legislator and allows it to determine its own internal arrangements rather than what is required by Westminster. Secondly, both Welsh and English are official languages of the Assembly—as someone rather paradoxically put it, English is a Welsh language in that respect—and both must be treated equally. Therefore, providing that the Presiding Officer’s statement must be made in both languages is unnecessary—nugatory.

Amendment 33 seeks to amend clause 12, which inserts a new section into the Government of Wales Act 2006. This would replace the previous arrangements for financial controls and provide that Welsh legislation should make provision for the matters contained within that section, such as accounts to be prepared of their expenditure and receipts by the First Minister or other Ministers who draw sums from the Welsh consolidated fund. We believe that the new section should include basic safeguards in the form of minimum requirements that Welsh legislation should provide for, and that reflect good governance. Section 124 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 currently provides for authorisation by the Assembly. Amendment 33 proposes that funds should be issued from the Welsh Consolidated Fund only in accordance with legislation or authorisation by the Assembly, and can be utilised only for the purposes for which they were authorised. This simple addition to the Bill would improve accountability and responsibility, and it would reflect the provisions for Scotland—that is, section 65 of the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendments 38 to 45 are technical in nature. They amend clause 15, which provides that if the Assembly changes its name, then any reference in legislation, instruments and documents to the “National Assembly for Wales” is to be read as a reference to the new name. This saves having to change each reference to the “National Assembly for Wales”, of which there may be many thousands. However, the clause neglects the fact that Assembly Acts are prepared bilingually, and so references to the Assembly and the commission will be in Welsh and English. Moreover, it does not address the issue of legislation, instruments and documents that refer to “Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru”. The amendment clarifies that any reference in legislation, instruments and documents to “Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru” is also to be read as a reference to the new name in Welsh.

The same issues arise with regard to any change in the names of the National Assembly for Wales Commission or Acts of the National Assembly for Wales, which are also addressed in the amendment. The heading of the section inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006 by clause 15 refers to “translation of references”. The amendment would change that to “consequential provision”. That is more appropriate, given the overall effect of clause 15, and avoids confusion between legal translation—that is, consequential provisions—and linguistic translation of references. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that he might consider adopting some of these changes on Report.

I now turn briefly to clause 18 stand part. This clause shows the speed of political change. After nearly five years of discussions about Silk and powers for Wales, we are now providing that Wales Acts are relevant to the European Communities Act 1972, although the UK has just voted to leave the EU. Obviously, this provision should remain in the Bill. We are still in the EU, and unpicking EU legislation from our domestic legislation will take many years and will not be easy. There are questions as to how decisions will be taken about which EU legislation remains.

I hope that the UK Government, of whatever stripe, but particularly of a right-wing Conservative complexion, will not take it upon themselves to decide what is, or what is not, relevant to Wales. We have already heard the comments from one Conservative leadership contender at the weekend calling for a “strong Union”, and we suspect that we know what that actually means. We need to know where Wales stands and how these powers will be determined. So-called Henry VIII powers, lying either with the UK Government or with Whitehall bureaucrats, will not be democratically acceptable.

My party, Plaid Cymru, is the official Opposition in Wales and the second largest party after the elections two months ago. The balance of competences review did not consider Wales in particular depth, but, post-Brexit, we must consider the question of which powers should be in Wales’s hands and not those of Westminster. The vote in Wales to leave the EU was not a vote to centralise power in Westminster.

I draw the House’s attention to today’s Assembly debate on a motion standing in the name of our former colleague, Simon Thomas, which states that the Assembly

“believes that following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, provisions should be made to ensure that all legislation giving effect to EU Directives or Regulations pertaining to areas such as environmental protection, workers' rights, food safety and agriculture are retained in UK and Welsh law unless they are actively repealed by the relevant Parliament.”

The debate will repay close reading.

Whether or not Vote Leave was in a position to make the promises it made, they must be honoured by the Westminster Government because they were the Brexit promises that people voted for. That means additional money for the NHS through the Barnett formula, as well as protecting funding for our farmers and regional and structural funds post-2020.

It is right for clause 18 to remain part of the Bill, as it will be relevant until any official departure from the European Union takes place. However, the clause, like so many others, shows how the Bill has already been overtaken by events and why Wales should have so much more power than it provides. The Bill is far from being a once-and-for-all settlement, and we give notice that we will return to this matter later in this Parliament.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Alan, for calling me to speak on this hugely important Bill. The work leading up to it has played a significant part in my time in politics.

I pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I have a special reason for welcoming him to his position: of all the other Welsh Members of Parliament, I am probably the nearest to being an octogenarian, and his wonderful example gives me promise and ambition for the future. If he can do it, there is no reason why I cannot. I thank him for that, as well as for the great wit with which he has entertained me over many years.

The Bill is wide-ranging. Inevitably, opinions on it will differ and there will be an element of compromise. In his response to earlier amendments, the shadow Secretary of State said that we need to be pragmatic. We all have different opinions, including in my own party. We all, I think, want this Bill to go through, but we need to accept that we are going to have to compromise.

The big compromise that I have to make relates to the fact that the Bill transfers energy powers to the Welsh Government, the idea of which fills me with horror. I would find it difficult to support the Bill, except that the Welsh Government have, disgracefully, already taken unto themselves those powers through their local government responsibilities. That makes the Bill’s transfer of energy powers much less damaging to mid-Wales and much less of an attack on the people of mid-Wales than it would otherwise have been.

The intention behind the Bill is to provide a much more stable, long-lasting and permanent settlement for Wales and to provide clarity on it. I am not sure about the word “permanent”. I do not think it is wise to have a Wales Bill every five years, which is pretty much what we have been doing. This is not permanent: I think we will come back to developing devolution at a pace at which we can bring the people of Wales with us. Plaid Cymru Members spoke earlier about the judicial position. When the body of Welsh law is no longer tiny and grows to be substantial, we may have to revisit the issue in the future, and the same may be true of other issues that we have not entirely foreseen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I am not going to give way, because there are many technical amendments I need to cover and I want to make some progress.

I say to the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who moved amendment 32, that he has made a persuasive argument that the Assembly processes would ensure that Welsh is treated equally anyway, without adding a prescriptive provision to the Government of Wales Act. I would like to give the matter more thought but undertake to return to it on Report. I therefore hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment.

[Hywel Williams]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response and will listen to the rest of his speech with interest. I will withdraw the amendment. There is a progression in the normalisation of a language such as Welsh, from a point where it has to be specified to one where it is assumed, which is where we are in the National Assembly. That is an important point to make.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point that demonstrates the maturity of the debate and the acceptance of the language.

Clause 8 also provides for the Counsel General or the Attorney General to be able to refer the question of whether a provision of an Assembly Bill relates to a protected matter to the Supreme Court for a decision. The Counsel General or the Attorney General may make such a reference to the Supreme Court at any time during a period of four weeks from either the Assembly rejecting the Assembly Bill or its being passed.

There is precedent for a requirement for a super-majority on matters of constitutional importance. Under the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Assembly vote that triggered the 2011 referendum on Assembly powers required two thirds of Assembly Members to vote in favour. The Government believe that the safeguards in the Bill are sensible and command broad support across Wales.

Supplementing clause 8, clause 9 amends requirements for the Assembly Standing Orders on Assembly Bill proceedings, to reflect the new processes required as a result of a reference to the Supreme Court. The clause provides for Assembly Bills to be reconsidered by the Assembly in the event that the Supreme Court rules against the Presiding Officer’s decision on whether the Bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is in line with procedures put in place for the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Act 2016, which has been passed by both Houses.

Clause 10 relates to justice impact assessments, on which there was considerable debate. The UK Government and Welsh Government have a number of well-established processes for assessing the impact of legislation on matters ranging from regulation to equalities. Indeed, on Second Reading I discussed the fact that Assembly Bills are assessed against their likely impact on the Welsh language and on equalities. It is also important to recognise that, through the Treasury and a range of other Departments, Her Majesty’s Government issue guidance and requirements relating to expectations of how public spending will be conducted and how public interests will be guarded. That is the principle under which the justice impact assessment should be considered, rather than how it has been interpreted by many.

Within the UK Government, Departments bringing legislation forward to this House are required to assess its likely impact on the justice system. The importance of that assessment is self-evident: for legislation to be effective it must be enforceable. It is vital that that enforcement process is ready and resourced sufficiently to cope with new demands placed upon it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I remind my right hon. Friend that a similar number of people who pay income tax also pay council tax, and that many will be business owners who pay business rates.

Much reference has been made to the Welsh Conservative manifesto and I remind right hon. and hon. Members what it said. Our manifesto for Wales stated that a funding floor would be introduced in the expectation that the Welsh Government would hold a referendum. We have fulfilled our end of the bargain, having introduced a funding floor of 115%, as has been mentioned. That is the floor—if I may gently correct the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)—and the spending level is currently higher. If the Welsh Government are not going to introduce a referendum—I do not think that any of us want one after the events of recent weeks—we will need to take steps, so I hope that the House will agree clause 16 as it stands.

Clauses 17 and 20 deal with the functions of Welsh Ministers and devolve important new powers to them. Clause 17 will insert new subsection 58A into the Government of Wales Act 2006, conferring common law-type powers on Welsh Ministers—the kinds of powers exercised by a natural person, such as the power to enter into contracts, make payments or set up companies. It is difficult to believe that Welsh Ministers do not already hold these powers, and it demonstrates how current legislation is out of date with modern thinking and concerns.

Clause 19 deals with the transfer of ministerial functions. The Bill provides for a clear separation between devolved and reserved powers, an important component in which is being clear about which so-called pre-commencement Minister of the Crown functions in devolved powers are to be exercised in the future. We intend to transfer to Welsh Ministers as many of these functions as we can. We will do so in a transfer of functions order made under section 58 of the Government of Wales Act and will bring forward a draft order during later stages of the Bill. Several other transfer of functions orders have been made under section 58 since the Assembly was established.

I turn now to amendment 11, tabled by Labour, which would place a requirement in the Bill for a so-called fiscal framework. I should underline that the precedent in Scotland was not for the inclusion of such a provision in legislation; instead, the UK and Scottish Governments negotiated an agreement. I would hope that a mature relationship has developed between the Welsh and UK Governments, and between the First Minister and me, in respect of how we conduct our affairs. Clearly, there is no way I want to see Wales in a detrimental position—that is the starting point of our negotiations—and I am optimistic that we can come to an agreement over the appropriate adjustments to the Welsh block. Holtham has made some recommendations that are a good starting point for those discussions. Few people believed we would ever get to the position of introducing a funding floor. I hope, therefore, that that funding floor of 115% might give people confidence.

I would like us to reach a position where the Welsh Government can grant a legislative consent motion. Under the model we followed in Scotland, a legislative consent motion came only after the fiscal framework was agreed. I would hope that, once we have reached an agreement on a fiscal framework and a Barnett adjustment, a legislative consent motion could then be used as proof and evidence. For that reason, the amendment proposed is unnecessary—appropriate structures are in place to allow for that mature discussion to take place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Hywel Williams]

We have had a wide-ranging debate, including on issues not really to do with the lead amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Introduction of Bills: justice impact assessment

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Wales Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I am happy to give that clarification. Matters of elections, which I will come to in further detail, will be devolved, subject to a two-thirds majority. That includes the franchise for the Assembly elections and the constituencies and a whole range of other areas. [Interruption.] I will happily respond to those points when I get to that part in my speech a little later.

I was guided by the principle of clarity because the new reserved powers model of devolution draws a well-defined boundary between what is reserved and what is devolved, clarifying who is responsible for what. It is also a major step in extending powers. It will end the squabbles over powers between Cardiff Bay and Westminster, enabling the Welsh Government to get on with the job of improving the economy, securing jobs and improving devolved public services.

The second principle is accountability. The Bill paves the way to introduce Welsh rates of income tax. It will make the Welsh Government accountable to people in Wales for raising more of the money they spend. This, again, is a major step in the Assembly’s maturity.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the Secretary of State concede that a third possible point of principle would be proper subsidiarity, and if so, does he believe this Bill meets that requirement?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I hope we can cover some of those points later in the debate, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, much will depend on what you determine and interpret as subsidiarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

The powers in the Bill will be limited to a capacity of 350 MW, as I have stated.

There can be no doubt as to the extent to which the Assembly has matured over the 17 years since it was established. That maturity is reflected in the development of the institution into a confident law-making legislature. In recognition of this, the Bill enshrines the Assembly and the Welsh Government as permanent parts of the United Kingdom’s constitutional fabric for the first time. It also makes a commitment that Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the Assembly’s consent.

[Hywel Williams]

The Secretary of State referred a moment ago to some of the new powers, but of course some powers are not going to be devolved. Could he explain the principle behind choosing which powers to devolve and which to retain? For example, why is water to be retained here while sewerage goes down to Cardiff?

[Alun Cairns]

I will talk about the devolution of powers relating to water a bit later on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an intergovernmental working group has been established and that it is considering the implications of the in-principle decision that has been taken on devolved water. I will happily comment in further detail when I reach that part of my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I wish to make a little more progress, then I will happily give way to a number of colleagues.

The Bill devolves a range of further transport powers, enabling the Assembly to legislate on all aspects of Welsh roads. It will be able to decide what the speed limits should be on Welsh roads; the regime for traffic signs and pedestrian crossings on those roads; the regulation of taxi services; and the registration of bus services in Wales.

There will be further powers on the environment. The Assembly can decide whether and how fracking takes place in Wales, and Welsh Ministers will have a say on whether licences are granted for new coal mining operations. It is difficult to believe that, with all of the Wales Acts that have passed since 1997, the Welsh Assembly does not have the power to sanction a new coal mine; it needs approval from the UK Government.

[Hywel Williams]

I have intervened on the Secretary of State twice, and this will be the last time. On transport matters, what will the implications be for the transport commissioner for Wales, who, as I understand it, is currently located in Birmingham?

[Alun Cairns]

Discussions are ongoing between the Department for Transport, the Wales Office and the Welsh Government about the functions and role of the transport commissioner, who serves the west midlands as well as Wales.

Welsh Ministers’ powers over marine licensing and marine conservation in the inshore area are being extended to the Welsh offshore zone.

The Bill devolves powers over sewerage and, as we committed to in the St David’s day agreement, we will consider the views of the joint Government review on aligning the devolution boundary for water with the national boundary when it reports its findings in due course. That was a point raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr.

The Bill devolves a significant number of further powers, and I shall not go into detail on each this afternoon. The purpose of Second Reading is to consider the broad principles of the Bill before we move forward to the Committee stage. As I mentioned at the outset, the Bill devolves further powers that stem from the Smith commission. These include powers over equalities, the design of renewable incentives and the scrutiny of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. We are also giving the Assembly and Welsh Ministers a greater say in how the interests of Wales are represented within Ofcom. This is a strong package of further powers that moves Welsh devolution forward substantially and can be used to improve the lives of people in Wales if exercised thoughtfully by the Assembly and the Welsh Government.

I spoke about the Assembly coming of age, and the package of further powers for the Assembly truly gives form to that vision. Through this Bill, the Assembly will take control of its own affairs, including deciding arrangements for its own elections. It will be able to determine how its Members are elected, the number of Members, the constituencies and regions used in those elections and who is eligible to vote. As we promised in the St David’s day agreement, the Bill gives the Assembly full responsibility for deciding how it conducts its own affairs and regulates its own proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. There has to be a time limit if we are going to have a constitutional convention, because we do not just want academics producing papers and having long arguments. We should draw on the experiences of the British state as it is today, with the degree of decentralisation that has already taken place, and look at the English question. I genuinely agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth that that needs to be looked at in a positive way. I welcome the extension of powers to the regions and cities in England.

I talked about the many people who have moved from being against devolution to now being very active pro-devolutionists. Many in this House, including those in the two nationalist parties, do not think we are going far enough or quick enough. I understand and respect that, but as a pro-devolutionist I want the devolution settlements to work for Wales and for the UK. I want us to move forward in a positive way, bringing the people of Wales with us. Rather than just having ideologies, we must have practical devolution that works. We are moving forward, and this Bill helps in many ways in doing that. It is no good having devolution that just devolves powers from London to Belfast, Edinburgh or Cardiff—I want it to be spread within the nations and within the rest of the United Kingdom. I have seen some bad examples in this regard. When I served on the Welsh Affairs Committee and we went up to Scotland, we saw a lot of centralising of services. I worry about that. As a real devolutionist, I think we need better devolution within the devolved countries, as well as England, to get the balance right. I want to see this Bill improved, but I say that as someone who is an advocate of practical devolution. I welcome the devolving of more powers.

I am not going to deal with the detail of the constitutional issues, but I do want to talk about the practical implications of devolving powers in the context of ports, transport, and energy. I have a specific interest in ports, as the Member for Ynys Môn, which has a principal port that has grown. I have seen how the flaws in the devolution settlement have hampered some of the development of ports. I recall a new berth being built in the early 2000s—I think it was 2003-04—when we had to get special consent from the Department for Transport, the Welsh Office and the Welsh Government, with one saying that it was not possible to build within the port. The new provisions clarify that. When the Welsh Government take over responsibility for ports, they will be able to develop them in a practical way, with the local authority doing the planning as well. I welcome that.

As a former member of the Energy and Climate Committee, I welcome the move towards devolving powers on fracking and on petroleum extraction on land, and, I think, if I am reading the Bill correctly, at sea in territorial waters. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that when he winds up. It is important for the Welsh Government to have those consents in the same way as they have consents for offshore wind and other things. Wales could be really radical in low-carbon energy and the low-carbon economy if it has the tools to do so. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on nuclear power. I think that we need to have baseload low carbon alongside renewable energies. We need to have the proper mix, and Wales can be a leader in low-carbon energy. I welcome the consent for power stations up to 350 MW. That is a very good step forward.

I am concerned, however, about the grid connections. The Bill gives consent to the Welsh Government in planning and various other areas, but it does so only for the distribution grid, not the national grid. The measures relate to developments under 132 kV. I would like some clarification on that, because in my area and many other areas of Wales, National Grid projects are going ahead that will have a great impact on local communities. The Welsh Government and local government are best placed to look at those, rather than National Grid, which is an organisation that looks to its own private interests.

[Hywel Williams]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he has been doing on this matter in Ynys Môn, which is similar to that which I have been doing in Arfon. I share his concern that National Grid is not accountable to the people of Wales. It has supposedly carried out extensive consultations, but there has been no real consultation in our area.

[Albert Owen]

In the past couple of years we have highlighted the importance of giving the energy regulator more teeth to deal with that issue. We need the regulator on one side and the consenting authorities—which will be the Welsh Government, I hope, and the local authorities—on the other, so that we can put pressure on National Grid to take into account the impact that energy generation has on the environment and local communities, as well as on the national interest. I accept that there is progress in the Bill, but I would like clarification on that.

Clause 46 places a greater duty on the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before amending or establishing renewable energy incentives, such as feed-in tariffs and contracts for difference. That is important, because when Welsh Ministers then give consent, they will understand what it means for local developers and the total project. I would like to hear greater detail in Committee on what that means. A one-stop shop for energy developers sounds very good, but the involvement of multinationals and other developers will make it difficult.

I welcome the consent for fracking and extraction. As with other minerals, it is important that the Welsh Government have that. It is a tidying-up exercise.

I have already touched on port consent. The road transport powers are welcome, but they do not go far enough. Wales needs a more integrated transport system that takes into account sea, road and rail, rather than an approach that breaks them up. I want greater powers over rail. The franchise is coming up for renewal both of the Virgin Trains service on the west coast and of the Arriva Trains service on the Welsh borders. The Welsh Government will have an input, but the approach could have been tidied up a little bit better.

The Bill addresses predominantly constitutional issues, but it has important practical implications for Wales. I welcome the scrapping of the necessity tests and the fact that consents have been simplified. That is very good. I also welcome the reserved powers model, which a lot of Members from across the parties have worked together to establish.

I am concerned about income tax, an issue I argue about with some of my colleagues at the National Assembly. I have been involved in a number of referendums. If we think that the European referendum is going to be close, let us not forget how close the result was in 1997. I remember the differential between Scotland and Wales. I believe that if income tax powers for Wales had been on the ballot paper, the result would have been different. I say that as someone who argued the positive case for devolution, and that is what I am now doing for remain. We have to be delicate in the way we talk about devolving income tax and what it really means to the people of Wales. If the Government are saying that the Bill will introduce it without further consultation with the people of Wales and without a proper financial settlement, we will be in trouble. I do not want a huge gap appearing as a result of the block grant being reduced and it having to be made up out of general income tax.

I am not against the principle of devolving tax-raising powers to the Assembly—we have already done that in other measures in the Wales Act 2014—but I have also consistently supported the principle of holding a referendum when a major constitutional change is proposed, and I think that the devolution of income tax is one such change. That is the principle that I held in 1997, and I still hold it now. We need a further debate on the issue, because it would be wrong for the UK Government to make that decision after saying in 2014 that they were not going to make it. Indeed, the Conservatives, who are now in the majority here, told the country that they did not want to devolve income tax powers. I am cautiously concerned about the way in which the change is being made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

Well, I am a total democrat by comparison with my hon. Friend. The tax-varying powers that the Scottish Government enjoy were given in a referendum. That is my point. There has to be consistency on these matters.

[Hywel Williams]

Will the hon. Gentleman concede, however, that framing a proper and understandable question that allows for a clear response is not easy? Does he have a suggested wording for such a referendum question?

[Albert Owen]

I have not thought of the wording, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that democracy is difficult. We have to make a positive case for things and do so honourably. I did not understand, and was not able to explain in great detail, the question on extending powers in 2011, but I argued, along with members of Plaid Cymru, that the Welsh Government deserved to have lawmaking powers. Tax-varying and lawmaking powers are simple questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has said, it may be difficult to win an argument, but we have to stick to principles. I have been consistent on this matter since 1997, and I do not think we can just jump into it after all the different elections we have had. However, given the current referendum, I understand the climate of fear that people find themselves in at present. I want to be radical and forward looking, and I want the Welsh Government to be so, too.

When the Minister winds up, I want him to clarify the issue of election powers. On the issue of lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, am I right in thinking that the Welsh Government will have the power to do so and that it will apply to Welsh Assembly and local government elections only? If there were a Welsh-only referendum, such as one on tax-varying powers or another Wales-specific issue, would the Welsh Government have the power to lower the voting age from 18 to 16? I am an advocate of that and have argued the case for it in this House for some time. This is an opportunity for us to give those responsibilities to the Welsh Government.

My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West and for Wrexham have been campaigning hard on compulsory voting. This is a great opportunity for the Welsh Government to be radical. Let us give them the tools to do the job. If the Welsh Government decide that they want compulsory voting in Wales, that would be a good step forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

Absolutely. It is the untapped resource. I know that there are objections to various other forms of power. Another question that comes in here is about nuclear power. The scheme in the Bill will not allow Wales any control over Hinkley Point, which is very close to us in Wales; although it is almost certainly doomed now. The future scheme at Wylfa would be outside the limit. Small modular schemes mostly start at about 300 MW, but go up to about 700 MW, so if people wanted to go down the road of nuclear power, they would be outside the scope set in the Bill. We should allow the visionaries of the Welsh Assembly to go ahead and develop power. We have an enormous resource. We could be a vast power station for ourselves and for the whole United Kingdom.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Does he find it telling that in my constituency there was a plan to develop a hydroelectric scheme at 49 MW to avoid the bureaucracy of having to come to London for permission? Now that the changes in the Bill are afoot, the people in charge of the scheme are talking about going up to 350 MW. Why should they be constrained by what seems an entirely arbitrary limit?

[Paul Flynn]

It is a great shame. The Rheidol station is of that order, at 45 MW. The stations exist. They enhance the beauty of the scene—they do not detract in any way. Wind turbines do and so are very unpopular, but no one knows that Tanygrisiau is there. The three great pump storage schemes in Wales are entirely acceptable and fit in with the beauty of the hills, or improve things, because of the lakes. There is no pollution of any kind. It is the way forward—it has been successful. The two main ones were built in 1963, which is a long time to have been manufacturing electricity from a wholly benign source without appreciating its value. We go on from there to tidal power.

I believe the people in the Welsh Assembly should be in charge of decisions on power. We can be a great source of power generation in a way that is wholly British and free. It will last eternally, and, as I say, it is entirely predictable. I hope that point will be considered.

If the Bill goes forward with goodwill from all parts of the House, we should remember the story of devolution in Wales and how it has grown up and can stand tall among the nations of the world. It is a matter of pride to see the development of the Welsh Assembly in that beautiful building in Cardiff.

We have just opened a centre in Newport. A marvellous poem by Gillian Clarke about the story of Wales and the struggle for our rights over the years is embossed on the side of Friars Walk. She writes about the Chartists who came down to Newport in 1839, with the cold rain stinging their faces and

“heads bowed against the storm like mountain ponies”

marching for something they believed in. Twenty were shot and killed outside the Westgate hotel. That is commemorated today, with the six points of the People’s Charter, on Friars Walk. She writes about that and the rise of devolution:

“…they stormed the doors to set their comrades free,

and shots were fired, and freedom’s dream was broken.

A score dead. Fifty wounded. Their leaders tried,

condemned, transported. The movement, in disarray,

lost fifty years. Then came, at last, that shift

of power, one spoonful of thin gruel at a time,

from strong to weak, from rich to poor,

from men to women, like a grudged gift.”

The grudged gift keeps on giving and now we have another example of it. The gruel is a little thicker and the spoon is a bit bigger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

After the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, the Prime Minister promised the people of Wales that just as the rights of Scottish voters will be “respected, reserved and enhanced”, so, too, would the rights of the Welsh voters. He promised that Wales would be “at the heart” of the devolution debate. Since then, the Wales Office has published a draft Wales Bill and now we have the Wales Bill proper, billed as the UK Government’s response to the cross-party Silk commission. The draft Bill failed to deliver on the recommendations of the Silk commission—a commission established by the Tories themselves. Its recommendations were supported by all four of Wales’s biggest political parties, including the Secretary of State’s own Welsh Tories. Plaid Cymru, civil society groups, and people in all parts of Wales had hoped that the re-drafted Wales Bill would return to the consensus of the Silk commission and would offer the people of Wales the devolution settlement that is ours as of right, one that is sustainable, ambitious and fair. Today, we are very far away from that wholly reasonable goal.

I freely acknowledge that, compared with the draft published last autumn, some progress has been made in making the Bill fit for purpose, but we still have a long way to go before this Bill will become fit for enactment. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has acted on some of the criticisms of the previous draft, for example on the reservation of criminal law and the necessity tests. The recognition of the fact of Welsh law is very much to be welcomed, but it is just a recognition of the reality of the situation in Wales. There remain serious concerns regarding the complexity, uncertainty and indeed lack of coherence in some parts of the Bill.

Throughout Wales’s long devolution journey, Plaid Cymru has always tried to get the best possible deal for everyone and anyone who chooses to make their home in Wales. Those people who call Wales their home best understand the needs of our country. I believe it was Gwynfor Evans who once said that anyone can be Welsh, as long as they are prepared to take the consequences. One of those consequences is that those who live in Wales face up to deciding for Wales, but we recognise that not all parties share this view, which is why we signed up to the Silk commission. It was a cross-party commission, with nominees from each of the four biggest parties in Wales, along with academic experts, who talked, formally and informally, with people all over Wales. It was a truly representative commission and the two reports it produced represented a true consensus.

That consensus was not easy to achieve. We in Plaid Cymru gave way on some points, ones that were important to us but not to others, as did other parties on their issues. The Silk process involved all parties making compromises, including my own, so it was deeply disappointing and frustrating to see the Wales Office dump that true consensus in order to find a lowest common denominator and then call it an “agreement”. Far from being an agreement, the St David’s day White Paper and this eventual Wales Bill fall well short of the consensus that Silk worked so hard to achieve. The profound criticism of this Bill, after just one week, is in the same vein as that of the discredited draft Bill all those weeks ago. The criticism is really striking when we contrast it with the consensus and welcome that surrounded the Silk recommendations in Wales.

What happened to the consensus on the idea that Wales’s natural resources should be in the hands of those living in Wales? What happened to the consensus on the idea that it is the people of Wales who are best placed to determine our policing policies? What happened to the consensus on the idea that it is the people of Wales who best understand our country’s transport needs? Under this Bill, Wales can set its own speed limits, but drink-drive limits are just too complicated for little old us. One of the historical political controversies in Wales relates to water. Water is much too valuable a resource to be left to the Government of Wales, but, yes, we are allowed to have sewerage.

I have many concerns regarding the current list of reserved policy fields, and I shall return to them later. I wish to start by focusing on the foundations of the draft Bill. I should stress that Plaid Cymru warmly welcomes the move to a reserved powers model—that is, to move away from the current devolution model in which the settlement lists areas on which the Assembly can legislate to a model in which the settlement lists areas where they cannot.

There was an unusual and welcome consensus across all of Wales’s six biggest parties on the need to move to a reserved powers model. That consensus stems from the lack of clarity on where the responsibility lies, especially as compared with the Scottish dispensation; the challenges to Welsh legislation in the Supreme Court under the current dispensation; and the danger of further and increased challenges in the Supreme Court if we do not get this sorted out.

It was thought that moving to a reserved powers model would provide clarity both legally and for the public as to what is and what is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly. This is a problem for MPs as well, and it is no small matter. When considering legislation, I do not know how many times I have had to ask: “Is this Wales only? Is it England only? Is it England and Wales only? Is it Great Britain, or is it even Great Britain and Northern Ireland?” Whatever people’s opinion on devolution—whether pro or anti—we can all agree that such ambiguity is bad for democracy.

Moving to a reserved powers model should also be about changing the ruling attitudes towards devolution. It would be for the UK Government to justify whether something should be reserved, rather than justifying why something should be devolved. This is devolution based on subsidiarity—real subsidiarity, as I said to the Secretary of State earlier—rather than retention. It is enabling rather than hobbling, and trusting and respecting rather than suspecting and resenting. That is the case, however much some Whitehall Departments might snarl—and I think we know who they are.

I fear that these principles—the foundations of the arguments in favour of the reserved powers model—have been lost, and the result is a Bill that is unclear, somewhat unstable and possibly unsustainable. We have gone from a position as recently as last May where all six of Wales’s biggest parties agreed on a way forward, to a position now where the UK Government are alone in thinking that this Bill delivers a lasting settlement. The Wales Office has admitted that, rather than using the Scotland Act 1998 as a starting point—a devolution dispensation that has avoided the constant legal challenges and political tinkering that have bedevilled Welsh devolution—it has used the Government of Wales Act 2006, the failed devolution settlement that we are trying to replace. In fact, it is a model based on the administrative devolution in the 1960s, from the creation of the Welsh Office, as it was then known, onwards. It is a deeply outdated model and not fit for today, let alone tomorrow. The Bill claws back the powers for which the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly in 2011, and returns to a long list of reservations. The Western Mail, which, I concede, is not always 100% correct, lists 267 powers that

“Westminster doesn’t want Wales to have”,

ranging

“from axes to outer space”.

Almost every measure in the draft Bill was roundly criticised, but there was particular ire for the lengthy list of reserved powers. The Wales Office admitted that the list was too long, and promised to shorten it. It may well have taken out a few reservations, but the fact that the list has increased from 42 pages to 44 suggests that the ones that remain are even more long-winded than before.

[Alun Cairns]

rose—

[Hywel Williams]

There might be a reason for that, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will enlighten us.

[Alun Cairns]

On the list of reservations, simply measuring something according to the number of pages is not necessarily the most sensible thing to do. In the Scotland Act 1998, reservations are listed according to subject matter with a broad headline. A requirement in the Wales Bill is to make the list far more specific, so exceptions to the reservations are included, which naturally lengthens it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the spirit in which those reservations are defined: to prevent our ending up in court challenging each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I am grateful for that point, which we have discussed before, and I have said that the number of pages might not be the best indication of the number of reservations or their complexity.

There are new reservations in this Bill that were not in the draft Bill, for example, on matters as important as the Severn bridges—that nagging toothache for our economy in the south.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Going back to the intervention by the Secretary of State, does not the fact that the number of pages has increased indicate that this is not the bonfire of the reservations that we were promised?

[Hywel Williams]

No doubt that is something that we will debate. I relish the opportunity to discuss the reservations and hear the Secretary of State or his colleagues justify them. The explanatory notes include a description or explanation of the reservations but, as far as I can see, there is very little justification for them. I therefore look forward to hearing about that in subsequent debates.

The report by the Wales Governance Centre and University College London on the draft Bill described the list of reservations and said:

“Complexity is piled on complexity...the potential for legal challenge casts a long shadow.”

I see little evidence that the revised list is much clearer. It remains, alas, a lawyer’s playground. As I have said, the shift to a reserved powers model was supposed to be made in tandem with a shift in mentality—that is extremely important—to determine what needed to be reserved, rather than what should be devolved. It is clear that the Secretary of State has instead facilitated a Whitehall trawl of the powers—a pick and mix of what the Sir Humphreys fancy bagging for themselves—sometimes based on principles no deeper than the chance to shout “Mine!”

If the Secretary of State is serious about creating a lasting devolution settlement, he cannot simply flip the current settlement from the conferred powers model to the reserved powers model, then allow Whitehall to pick and choose which tasty bits of power they want to hang on to. The process must be built on principles. I agree with the principles that he identified—clarity and coherence—but I would add proper subsidiarity.

Some time ago I had an entertaining lunch with the Irish Minister responsible for a new Irish language Act. He was quite candid, loquacious and hilarious. He had been to Canada and Quebec and had thieved—his words—a little bit of their language law. He had been to Wales and has snaffled bits of ours. He had been here and there in the rest of Europe, and hey presto, here was their language bill. We do not need to roam two vast continents, stitching together a bit of this and a bit of that. A model is already there for the borrowing and—perhaps Plaid people will forgive me for saying this—it is a home-grown British model called the Scotland Act.

The Silk commission hoped that moving to a reserved powers model would be a chance to rewrite the settlement to remove some of the defects of haste and inconsistency that have so far marred legislative devolution in Wales. The list of reservations does not reflect that hope. The director of the Wales Governance Centre has described the Bill as being underpinned by a “patronising attitude” and as continuing to regard Wales as “enjoying a lower status” than the other devolved nations. In practical terms it will undoubtedly lead to more blame shifting between Cardiff and London. That is the last thing that people in Wales want and the last thing that the governance of the people of Wales requires.

Both the Welsh Affairs Committee, which has a Tory majority, and the National Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, which was also chaired by a Tory, recommended that each reservation should be individually justified. That recommendation has been ignored and, as I said, I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State or his colleagues making up for that as we go into Committee.

The Wales Governance Centre has offered a list of considerations for identifying functions that should be devolved: is it necessary to retain function X for the functioning of the UK as a state? Does retention of Y make the governance of the UK less clear or comprehensible? Does retention of Z undermine the workability, stability or durability of the devolution settlement? These are the questions that the Secretary of State should be asking himself for each and every one of the reservations in the Bill and I hope we will have time to hear him go through those steps. Simply making hundreds of reservations for no given reason is not acceptable, particularly when the real rationale seems to be a deeply suspect power grab by Departments of Government that have failed Wales so spectacularly over the past few years.

[Mr David Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. He talks about the need to analyse each and every one of the proposed reservations. Does he think that two days in Committee will be sufficient to achieve that?

[Hywel Williams]

I am not sure. I am in two minds about that. If we have full days of debate, that might indeed be the case. I have been here too long, so I remember days of Welsh debates which have been interrupted by statements, urgent questions and all kinds of shenanigans that have led to Welsh debates being curtailed. If we have protected time, we shall see. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) will be looking into this point further in his remarks and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be here to hear him.

I challenge the Secretary of State to respond today and offer justifications for why he believes the people of Wales do not deserve the same responsible government as the people of Scotland. As has been said, the Secretary of State voted for the Scotland Act. He voted to give the people of Scotland a Government with full control of Scottish natural resources, policing and criminal justice. He voted to make the Scottish Government responsible for raising a significant proportion of the money that they spend. He has also voted to devolve policing to Manchester, yet he refuses to do so for Wales. What practical reasons are there to insist that Welsh police forces follow the agenda of English forces? Those who were fortunate enough to be in the House last night would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) making just those arguments. What reason is there for focusing largely on problems prevalent in urban England, such as knife crime, rather than on meeting the needs of Wales, and in my case, particularly of rural Wales? What practical reason is there for setting, for example, a 350 MW limit on the Welsh Government’s power over energy—a point that I made to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer in his place—when there is no such limit on the Scottish Government? I raised the wholly practical question about that in my point to that hon. Gentleman. I will expand a little on it now, with the permission of the House.

A local hydroelectric scheme in Snowdonia was going to limit itself to 49 MW—that is the old limit. Those involved told me quite plainly that that was to avoid the entanglements of London bureaucracy. Now they are aiming for 350 MW, and they could produce more, but why should we skew reasonable economic development on the basis of a number that has, as far as I can see, been plucked out of the air? I would like to know why the figure is 350, and not 351 or 349.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Silk commission. Does he not accept that 350 MW was a recommendation from Silk and that it was arrived at based on a proposition from members of all political parties?

[Hywel Williams]

We have moved on from the Silk commission, and we are now looking at this issue—[Interruption.] If the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary can contain themselves, I will explain the position in a moment.

I would still like to hear the justification—not from the Silk commission, but from the Secretary of State—as to why the figure is not 351 or 349. What practical reasons are there for devolving the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay but not the lagoons proposed in the Cardiff area or in Colwyn bay, in the area of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones)? What is the justification? I am interested, and we might even get an answer. However, there is no sensible argument for this limit—for me at least—and there is no limit in Scotland. Unless such decisions are based on reason and principle, the devolution settlement will never be long-lasting, and we will perpetually be debating the constitution.

It is not Plaid Cymru who is the constitutional obsessive here, despite frequent challenges that it is; it is successive Westminster Governments who have chosen Sir Humphrey’s fudge, mudge and fix over empowering the Welsh Government to settle down and get on with the job of bettering the lives of the people of Wales—and, boy, do they have a job on their hands!

The Bill is, among other things, an attempt to keep as much power as possible in Whitehall by devolving as little as possible to Cardiff. As far as I can see, it is not likely to build a stable, sustainable and fair devolution settlement for our country. However, the Wales Office has an opportunity to give us the devolution settlement we need: one that leads not to court cases and blame shifting, but to economic growth, a healthier NHS and a better educated workforce—one that will actually work and stand the test of time.

Plaid Cymru will be tabling amendments to the Bill to ensure that the people of Wales are treated with respect. We will demand a devolution settlement that facilitates progress, rather than puts up blocks. I still hope that the official Opposition will support those amendments. The opportunity to shape Wales’s constitution does not come around that often.

The Bill is crucial to all of us who care about the future of our country so I do not want to be forced to vote against it, and neither do my hon. Friends. There are many things in it that we welcome, including powers over fracking and the devolution of electoral arrangements, for example. For the party of Wales—a party whose very reason for existing is to empower the nation and the people of Wales to run their own affairs—it would be a painful decision to vote against those powers, and I sincerely hope the Secretary of State will not force us to do that. I therefore urge him to take our criticisms in the constructive spirit in which they are intended and to bring forward his own amendments to rescue the Bill.

I urge the Secretary of State to reflect on the significance of what he is building. He is reshaping the constitution of Wales, and he has an opportunity to create a significant shift in Wales’s future—to build a new Wales for a future history of Wales. This is an opportunity to construct the foundation on which his country’s economy will be built; his country’s NHS will be healed and his country’s schools will be transformed. He should not waste it.

The Bill falls well short of the Silk commission’s recommendations. However, the reality is that the commission, despite its good work, has now been superseded by the Scotland Act. Wales must not be forced to lag behind. The Secretary of State can be stubborn and push the Bill if he wishes to, but he will be in danger of pushing yet another failed Bill and of becoming a failed Secretary of State for Wales, and I would not wish that on him. He would be one in the line of a great many others who, as Secretary of State for Wales, have failed to serve Wales all that well. He should heed the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who last night made a compelling case on, for example, devolving policing. We heard not a peep from Welsh Tory Back Benchers or Welsh Labour Members on this matter, let alone ascertained their opinions in the Lobbies, with the honourable exception of the Secretary of State himself, who I think I spotted trooping through the No Lobby. He should also take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, who called for him to follow in the footsteps of the great Conservative reformers of the past—politicians who foresaw the future and legislated with foresight rather than submitting to the constraints of the present.

Disraeli wrote novels, now largely unread, as well as getting in a bit of prime ministering while he was at it. When asked if he had read “Daniel Deronda”—a very good novel—he replied:

“When I want to read a novel, I write one.”

The Secretary of State might likewise wish to see a good Wales Bill, so he should write one. I am sure he is capable of doing that, but this one is not quite it. He and his Under-Secretary now have a rare opportunity to prove that they are politicians of vision. My hon. Friends and I envy them. As to the Bill, I say with our national poet, Waldo Williams,

“Beth yw trefnu teyrnas? Crefft

Sydd eto’n cropian”,

or, “What is ordering a kingdom? A craft that’s barely crawling.” I say to them: do not waste this opportunity to build your nation into the country that it could be—the country that, by rights, it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

I think the question to ask is how many will be above that level if we have Welsh devolution on the matter.

My third and final example is agriculture. The Welsh Assembly is just not hearing the voices of those of us in rural areas. It has substantially cut the agricultural budget and taken the maximum support payment away from our farmers. Until a month ago, it did not even allow agriculture, the environment and rural affairs a full place around the Cabinet table. This is the same Assembly that spent nearly £50,000 on a wind turbine that generated £5-worth of energy before being switched off.

[Hywel Williams]

I am afraid I must insist that the hon. Gentleman says that it is the Government doing that, rather than the Assembly. It is the Labour Government who are taking those decisions, not the Assembly itself. It might be ruled by a Labour Government, but those decisions are not the fault of the Assembly as such.

[Chris Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I stated that earlier in my speech. However, there is collective responsibility down there, and it is the Assembly Government who are making those decisions.

This is the same Assembly that, when given the independent living fund by the Department for Work and Pensions, passed it on to local councils, but not before taking a so-called administration fee. That cost the adult social care budget for people in my local authority area of Powys £49,000.

Devolving further powers before the Welsh Assembly proves that it can utilise the powers that it already has is like hiring the same cowboy builder who has built a structurally unsafe house to come back and build the extension. It is unsound to make the assumption that piling more bricks on top of a wobbly Jenga tower will make it sturdier. It just does not make sense. Surely this is not the pillar of accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)]

It is a pleasure to close today’s debate and to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who made a passionate speech, highlighting and reminding us of the Labour Members who fought for devolution over the years. I am quite certain that most of those Labour Members would have been very supportive of this Wales Bill. I can offer my sympathetic support to the argument that the Welsh Grand Committee should be able to use the Welsh language, but as a Back Bencher I was not a very keen attendee of that Committee, so it might not be a power that I would use.

This has been an important and constructive debate. Although Members on both sides of the House have criticised what is in the Bill, it would be fair to say that there is a general feeling of support for it. I sometimes deplore the fact that the BBC argues that if it is attacked by people on both sides of an argument, it must be doing something right. However, having heard the speeches by the hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on the one hand and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) on the other, I somehow feel as though I am a member of the BBC in saying that if those two sides of the argument are both unhappy, we must clearly be doing something right.

It is important to touch on some of the main issues identified as changes to the draft Wales Bill, and it is important to note that when we published the draft Bill back in the autumn of 2015, the Wales Office was more than willing to allow for a period of pre-legislative scrutiny. That should not be seen as a weakness; it is a strength, reflecting how this place works. Many of the criticisms have been taken on board. Some were perhaps too strong or ill-conceived, but the Bill is stronger as a result of that pre-legislative scrutiny. I pay tribute to members of the Welsh Affairs Committee who did the hard work of carefully considering the Bill clause by clause, and to the Committee Chair, who has done a fantastic job. His speech today was incredibly constructive, and he highlighted some people’s concerns, while also ensuring that they understand the genuine feeling that the aim of the Bill across the House is to make the devolution settlement work.

The change to a reserved powers model is important and fundamental, but I take issue with comments made by some Members, not least the hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Arfon, who highlighted time and again the important fact that the Bill does not propose a settlement that is identical to that in Scotland. When I was growing up, the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” in our house—I think it was owned by my grandmother—stated clearly, “For Wales, see England”. It appears that some criticism of the Bill from Plaid Cymru Members basically states, “For Wales, see Scotland”, which ignores the fundamental differences between the Scottish situation and the historical settlement there, and what we are trying to create in Wales. A settlement identical to the one in Scotland is not necessarily the right way to go, and it would not necessarily create a settlement that is fair to Wales and right in that context.

[Hywel Williams]

The Minister referred to the first edition of the “Encyclopaedia Britannica”, which said, “For Wales, see England”, but the real scandal is that when someone looked under England, there was virtually nothing about Wales. Our point is that a great deal in Scotland is pertinent to Wales.

[Guto Bebb]

As some Members have said, successive Secretaries of State have highlighted the fact that the latest change to the Welsh devolution settlement will end the issue once and for all, but I genuinely think that this Bill will create a long-standing settlement. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Welsh devolution settlement was voted for by the people of Wales back in 1999, it was welcomed by the then leader of Plaid Cymru as a significant change to the Welsh situation. We must recognise how far the devolution settlement in Wales has travelled since that point.

The hon. Members for Arfon, for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) highlighted the reserved powers model and the number of reservations, but those reservations have been put in place to move from a conferred powers model to a reserved powers model. The number of reservations has been reduced, although there is an argument about whether they should have been reduced by a larger amount, and I am certain that there will be an opportunity in Committee to reconsider some of the elements that have been reserved. I say to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr that I am pleased to offer a full two days of Committee with protected hours, which I hope will be sufficient to ensure his support for the time allocated for the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he is doing in his constituency, where a number of steelworkers reside, and for the responsible way in which he has pressed issues that are fundamental to a successful steel sale. I met the First Minister earlier this week, and we absolutely agreed that this issue is our priority. We are determined to continue in close dialogue and to work closely together to secure the sale.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

We on the Opposition Benches are solidly with the steelworkers who will be marching through Westminster today. The European Parliament has voted against giving China market economy status. Will the Secretary of State press his colleagues in the Cabinet to agree to higher tariffs on Chinese steel?

[Alun Cairns]

I look forward, like the hon. Gentleman, to meeting the unions that are marching through Westminster later today. Of course, we are determined to work with the unions and with Tata. However, market economy status for China is separate from the capacity of the European Commission to introduce tariffs. Where tariffs have been introduced, they absolutely work. There are 37 trade defence measures in place at the moment. On wire rod, for example, imports are down by 99%, and I could highlight a range of other speciality steels. So let us not confuse market economy status and the capacity to introduce trade defence measures.

[Hywel Williams]

Steel was a significant element in Wales’s £5 billion-worth of exports to the EU in 2015—that is in fact a third of the whole Welsh Government budget. Will the Secretary of State now make the positive case for the advantages to Wales’s businesses, jobs and profitability of remaining in the European single market and the European Union?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: 69% of steel produced in the UK is exported to the European Union. Access to that single European market is fundamental to the steel industry, but it is also fundamental to attracting a buyer. That was the very point I was seeking to highlight to business leaders in Swansea last week.