Brexit: Welsh Economy

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I have no hesitation in saying how welcome that news is, but once again I stress the fact that we are not just protecting jobs in Wales, as many new jobs are being created there. The removal of the tolls on 17 December will be a welcome boost to the south Wales economy. Generally, the position in Wales is very healthy.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Would Her Majesty’s Government be prepared to publish a document setting out their best calculations on the effect of Brexit on life in the whole of Wales?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, that is a constructive and useful suggestion; I shall take it back. It would be very useful in relation to Wales. The Secretary of State will obviously want to consider it.

Leaseholders’ Rights: High-rise Blocks

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the amount is actually £420 million, but the noble Lord is absolutely right that that could be somewhat higher: it is an estimate. That money is designed for replacing the cladding system. On the type of 24/7 watch he referred to, some of these interim measures were in place for blocks where the remediation work has not yet been completed. It is certainly our view that social tenants should not bear the cost of that. In the private sector, similarly, interim measures are in place and it is the view of the department that those costs should be borne by freeholders. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is having round-table meetings in the next few weeks to discuss these issues with leaseholders and owners.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Is it not the case that the responsibility of the landlord will depend to a large extent upon the lease or tenancy agreement and that these may vary considerably? In the circumstances, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a strong case for imposing a blanket statutory responsibility on landlords in this connection?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the position will vary according to the nature of the lease in question: it may vary enormously from one lease to another. We already have the example of Citiscape in Croydon where those responsible, the leaseholders under the lease, have had the owner of the block, Barratt, come forward and say it will bear the cost. We are hoping that that position will be replicated in other cases. We rule nothing out, but in the meantime the round tables that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is organising provide a way forward to see how this will be received.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I am sympathetic to and fully support the sentiments tendered by the two noble Lords who have spoken. During the years I spent as a judge, I often came to the conclusion that violence could eat like acid into the mentality and the heart of a lawful society. What we often forget is that although we are horrified by the idea of violence taking place in the open street—fights with knives, bicycle chains and so on—so much of it takes place behind the closed door of the ordinary home. That is why we should concentrate as much as we possibly can on this aspect.

There is often a cavalier attitude on the part of police officers, although only among a minority, and in local government. I came across the phrase, “It’s a domestic matter”, as if it were somehow or other beyond the pale of respectability and therefore not to be taken all that seriously. The fact that it is often a one-to-one situation and that no third or fourth party is present does not mean that it ends there. If we think about it, the vast majority of rape cases are one-to-one situations. If we were to demand that there should be a third or fourth party present, most rape prosecutions would never get off the ground at all. You have to do the best you can by sifting and analysing the evidence on the basis of a one-to-one situation. Of course sometimes there will be corroborative evidence by way of injury or something of that nature, but there is nothing inherently wrong in a one-to-one situation where you have to decide whether a serious charge being made by one person is in fact true in the circumstances. If I speak the obvious, I apologise for that, but more often than not worthy complaints are dismissed in this way.

There is a fundamental reluctance in the weaker party, who inevitably in most cases is the woman, to take the matter further. Sometimes that is out of consideration of the children and sometimes due to the fact that she wants to remain in the home. It can be because of her total economic dependence on the man. In many cases, the odds are stacked against her and therefore anything that can be done to ease her path to a just and proper settlement is very much to be commended.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 4, moved by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and supported by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, puts a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on the implementation of the policy. As with the previous amendment, it seeks to get some consistency into the process by providing guidance on identifying, recognising and supporting the survivors. The guidance must also address the issue of training because there can be an inconsistency of approaches between local authorities.

During the debate at Second Reading, I spoke about my visit to the domestic violence unit at Greenwich police station. I was really impressed by the work that the officers were doing, but also horrified by some of the terrible things I learned that people can do to others. What I found out was really horrific. The abuse can take many forms. It can be physical, sexual, emotional, financial, controlling, or coercive. The housing officers dealing with the victims have to have the knowledge and expertise to recognise the abuse and then be able to respond effectively to it. This is too important and too serious to leave without proper training for the housing officers who will be assessing each case. The point of the amendment about consultation is again very important. We have to get this right. I certainly fully support the amendment. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.

Wales Bill

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, some 3,000 years ago, Homer wrote in the Iliad that after the battle men like to reminisce about their prowess in the fight. Some 10 or 15 years ago the tributes and thanks were getting so extensive that the decision was taken that such tributes would no longer be heard at Third Reading. However, just as referring to people at the Bar is now commonplace—any Member of Parliament or Minister who comes to the Bar tends to get a mention these days—so that tradition, in which I firmly stand, has been eroded. Therefore, I confine myself to thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who has done a brilliant job in listening to all the complaints, some of which were completely without foundation. He has reacted very well. Lastly, I thank my noble friend Lady Randerson, who was part of the team in the coalition Government when the Bill was in its infancy. She played an important part in framing the way it progressed.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I strike a concordant note in joining with all others who have expressed so genuinely their appreciation of the Minister’s efforts in this matter. He has been a model of courtesy and accommodation in so far as it has been humanly possible for him to be so. Had he been invited to draft the Bill we would have had a very different piece of legislation before us, but that was not to be.

Although the Welsh Assembly yesterday gave its seal of approval to the Bill, although a reserved constitution has placed Wales technically in the same field as Scotland and Northern Ireland—a matter of constitutional significance—and although this is the third occasion when there has been a very thorough examination of the Welsh constitutional position in the short space of 19 years, nevertheless the Bill cannot be regarded as a great leap forward in the field of devolution at all. I say that because it seems to me that, compared with the situation Wales found itself in two and a half years ago after the agricultural workers’ wages case was decided by the Supreme Court, we are far behind where we were on that occasion in so far as the sum total of legislative and devolutionary authority is concerned.

When the Scottish referendum concluded and the Prime Minister, in the grey dawn of that morning, walked to a microphone in Downing Street, he uttered the words that Wales will be at the very heart of devolution. I was stirred and cheered by those words, but had they been followed with the prophecy, “But bear in mind that 27 months from now the range of devolution will have been very severely cabined, cribbed and confined by a Bill called the Wales Bill”, I am not sure my attitude would have been exactly the same.

There is no doubt that there has been a faint tinge of old colonialism relating to this situation—something I have referred to ad nauseam. I make no apology for that. It is the attitude somewhere or another that small, insignificant powers that are wholly classically local in their character must somewhere or another be withheld from Wales. I hope that will change. I hope future Governments will accept that we are no longer in a colonial era—that:

“The old order changeth, yielding place to new”.

It may well be that the Government think they have thrown away many of the difficulties relating to devolution in Wales, but not all things thrown away stay thrown away. There is a tale that David Lloyd George used to tell of one of his erstwhile colleagues, a person who had changed his attitude very considerably to former policies. Somewhere or another they came back to him again and again. Lloyd George likened it to the position of an old Aboriginal chief who was utterly fed up with his boomerang and threw it away. It did not matter whether he threw it in a sharp curve or in wide curve; back it came again and again. I end with the admonition to government: never forget the boomerang.

Wales Bill

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

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

In conclusion, it is important to realise that, although some very worthwhile progress has been made, the Government must shift their ground on the issue of legislating on ancillary matters. Otherwise, they are heading for bitter confrontation—and that is not something that any of us want.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 78. However, before so doing, I want to say first how delighted we are that the Minister is safe and sound with us. I must say that a doleful bell rang in my memory. In 1968, I was a Minister in the Home Office and on that particular day had Question 77 to answer. I was assured by somebody who might have known better that there was no prospect whatever of it being reached. However, in my nonconformist ignorance, I had not realised that it was Epsom week and that a large swathe of a particular party was disporting itself at Epsom. I still regard other persons as having some responsibility for that. On the other hand, there was a high degree of contributory negligence on my own part. However, we are very delighted that the Minister is with us. I doubt whether any Minister has ever attended a Bill with greater integrity, enthusiasm and candour as has the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in this matter.

I wholeheartedly support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, put forward as a background to the matter my proposed amendment deals with, which is demarcation. It is an attempt to try to draw a clear and understandable line between the authority of this Parliament and the authority of the Cardiff Assembly. As one brought up in the countryside, I have always espoused the adage: good fences make good neighbours. I have no doubt that there is massive truth and realism in that in relation to constitutional matters.

Devolution is both an end in itself and a means to an end. Essentially, what it means to me is that it is possible for a number of communities within the same kingdom and the same sovereign state to be able to share responsibilities of an administrative and, more particularly, legislative nature. That can be done only if there is a clear understanding of where the equitable point of balance—the watershed—exists in relation to the division of the two bodies. How do you find that? You do not find it in any criteria set down by a court of law or in an Act of Parliament; nor, if I may say so, do you find it in the learned writings of eminent jurists. You find it in each case by using instinctive common sense and an understanding of the justice of the situation.

If we look at European sub-Parliaments, there is no clear, consistent rule as to exactly where the boundary is drawn, but they have all espoused a common approach to the problem. It has been an approach that they accept, historically and socially: that there is what might be called a watershed and that certain matters flow inevitably to the general sovereign Parliament, while others inevitably and physically flow to local decision. That is the way that we should approach this matter in relation to Wales.

Of course, that has simply not happened. It is not as if the Government had set out their criteria for deciding what was local and what was general. As far as the outside world is concerned, it is a wholly haphazard ragbag of reservations—197 of them. I have looked carefully at the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland and there is nothing approaching that concentration of reservation in either of those countries. Indeed, it is not just a question of the number of reservations, but the sheer triviality. One could spend many doleful hours going through those lists.

I shall not repeat what I have said on more than one occasion in the House on that, but I will say that the Minister, as an able and distinguished professor of law, will know full well that under certain local public health Acts and local government Acts over the last century and a half, it was possible for local authorities of a modest nature to adopt certain modest rules. They effectively became local law. That happened on scores and scores of occasions. The Minister is probably in a better position to advise the House than anybody else, but interestingly, many of the 197 exceptions that we have would have been included in those very provisions. Is that not a massive irony?

My case therefore is this. The Government, intentionally or unintentionally, have managed to make a thorough and chaotic mess of this situation. There is no rationale as to why certain matters are reserved and others are not. No criteria are suggested at all. In so doing, a very great disservice has been done both to the principle of devolution and to the principle of subsidiarity, if there is a difference between the two. One may very well argue that one is talking about the same central principle. But as the matter now stands Her Majesty’s Government have devalued the whole principle of devolution and trespassed on the noble principle of subsidiarity, cynically reducing it to something wholly ineffective.

The purpose of the amendment is to seek not so much to cure the situation in which we now find ourselves, because that would take something much more fundamental, but to start a process of examining it in detail. The amendment would impose on the Secretary of State for Wales the obligation to set up a working party to report within three years on the operation of each and every one of the reserved matters, and to report to Parliament regularly on such progress. That would not answer the question altogether, but it would be a helpful way of approaching the problem. That working party should represent as broad a social and political spectrum as is humanly possible.

Perhaps I may make a suggestion to the Minister. If the Secretary of State wants to use something off the shelf to address this matter, he could do far worse than ask the Silk commission to sit again and consider this point. The Minister knows more than anyone else in the House about the commission, having for many years been one of its most distinguished members. The commission has reported on two occasions in a mature, diplomatic and thorough manner on Welsh constitutional matters, and it could do so again. On that basis, I urge the House to consider that this amendment is of real constitutional importance. It does not completely cure the problem but it is a hopeful way of setting about resolving it.

--- Later in debate ---

I know what the Minister will say: he will refer to the sovereignty of Parliament. Of course, as some sort of constitutionalist, I understand what is meant by “the sovereignty of Parliament”, but, with all due respect to this House and the other House, in reality that sovereignty is the legislative aspiration on the part of the Parliament—because, clearly, the sovereignty of Parliament, by its own decisions, has been delegated in different areas. This is the nature of devolution and we are now in a situation where the Parliament at Westminster has devolved powers to Wales and created a legislature that has had primary legislation since 2011. That legislature should therefore be treated as an equal partner in any future discussions.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Does my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, accept that whatever might be said about the purity of the principles that he puts forward—principles which the late Professor Dicey might very well have approved of—there is nevertheless a huge gap to be made up between the situation that existed on the day in July 2014 when the judgment was given in the agricultural workers’ cases, and the consequences of the Bill? To my mind, the gap in terms of actual devolution might be 20%, 30% or 40%. It is massive and until that gap is made up the noble Lord’s theory, for all its general attractiveness, does not really apply.

[Lord Elis-Thomas]

I appreciate being given the authority of Professor Dicey but the real situation is that these issues will be resolved through the public political debate that will continue about the constitution of Wales and all other constitutions, because that is the sign of a vibrant democracy. It is therefore not an appropriate subject for a working group, led by a Secretary of State or whomever—and I would say the same thing about a working group led by the First Minister of Wales or the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly or the Lord Speaker or the Speaker of the House of Commons. The issue is not about how that debate takes place: it is whether we need to place in statute, on the face of the Bill, the creation of a working group that would somehow have responsibility for delivering Wales from any constitutional weaknesses that it has as a result of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

78: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Working group to review reserved powers and functions
(1) The Secretary of State for Wales shall, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, set up a working party to report upon the operation of each and every power and function reserved to Parliament under Schedule 1 to this Act.(2) The working party established under subsection (1) shall, within three years of its establishment, report to the Secretary of State upon the operation of each and every power and function reserved under Schedule 1 to this Act, and make such representations as are appropriate as to whether the continued operation of such reservations is appropriate in the current context of devolution.(3) The Secretary of State shall publish the report and recommendations made under subsection (2).”

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but at the same time I want to—

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

Are you withdrawing the amendment, or do you want to speak to it?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 78 withdrawn.

Wales Bill

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, has just said, I have looked at the government amendments with some care and notice that Amendment 45, which sets out the proposed water protocol, refers to a,

“serious adverse impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England”,

and, conversely, water resources in Wales. What is not contained there is the impact on the social and environmental character of Wales from any proposal that may be brought forward for the extraction of water from Wales. When the Minister referred to Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—that the extraction of water from Welsh reservoirs shall require the legislative consent of the National Assembly for Wales—he said that we need not worry about that because there is already environmental law that will protect the people of Wales from the building of reservoirs that would have such an environmental or social impact. I would like the Minister to state quite clearly that there will be no reservoirs built in Wales without the consent of the Welsh Assembly. I think that that must be said. Whether it is due to the existing position or the proposals he has brought forward in these amendments, I do not care. I just want it to be absolutely clear what the position is.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I take exactly the same view and support completely everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I have, as the House well knows, spoken with bitterness and rancour on many previous occasions about what happened 50 years ago in Tryweryn in Wales. I make no apology for that. However, I jumped with joy when I had the impression—as I think every other Member of the House had the impression—that this matter had been settled once and for all on the previous occasion. I would have preferred it to have been included in an Act of Parliament as a matter of primary legislation, but I was perfectly prepared to accept the word of the Minister, a most honourable and splendid Minister whom we greatly admire, that this matter would be settled on the basis of a protocol. Now, it seems that that is left drifting in mid-air.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, speaks of a pig in a poke. I have no doubt that he is perfectly correct in that. There is no certitude at all now in relation to this matter. I feel that I acted rather foolishly when, some weeks ago, I, like many others, joined the choir of those on radio and television who revelled in the fact that this matter had been solved and a long-standing injustice had been righted. Although clearly there should be some further undertaking with regard to a protocol, I hope that the Minister will say tonight, in strict terms, that there will be no further Tryweryn—never, never, never.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I defer to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell’s specialist knowledge on fisheries and will restrict my comments to the general. I will also happily endeavour to follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, to limit contributions to under two minutes.

I spoke in Committee in support of reserving powers on consents for energy, on the basis that energy policy is so important as to be part of a national strategy determined by Westminster. On this occasion, however, I am delighted to support the devolution of matters relating to water and sewerage to the Welsh Government. As I hope will be mentioned today, and as was so passionately and eloquently referred to in the last debate on the Bill by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Elystan-Morgan, this decision should put right a long-standing injustice following the flooding of the Tryweryn valley in 1965.

I welcome the positive steps that the Government have taken to put in place a comprehensive devolution settlement for water and sewerage in Wales. The amendments on this subject brought forward today reflect a clear devolution boundary on these matters. This, in turn, reflects the clearer boundary between devolved and reserved powers which underpins the new model of devolution set out in the Bill. Importantly, it includes a new statutory agreement, the water protocol, between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, setting out how they will work together in future on water and sewerage matters and how any disputes will be resolved. This replacement of intervention powers with a statutory intergovernmental agreement reflects the maturing of the relationship between the two Governments, one that is based on working together and resolving issues by discussion, rather than relying on powers of intervention. I particularly welcome the move to make this agreement reciprocal, with the same duties on the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State to have regard to the interests of consumers in both England and Wales respectively in exercising functions relating to water resources, water supply or water quality.

We must all hope that, as predicted by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the last occasion, these decisions will be welcomed by every party in Wales and will put to rest any lingering rancour and bitterness that the tragic drowning of the Tryweryn valley created.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That is a drafting point. The noble Lord makes a fair point, but I can give the reassurance that there is certainly no intention on the part of the Government that this should not happen. It is something that is proceeding. I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention. We want this to happen and I believe that it will happen. I am not taking a pessimistic view of this. The noble Lord makes a fair point about the drafting, which I had not picked up—but sometimes these things are referred to as “may” and sometimes as “must”. From our point of view, we regard this as imperative.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

From what the Minister says, it seems pretty obvious that the protocol will not be in existence before the Bill receives royal assent. So one will be left with some sketch on the part of the Minister. That is not the ideal way of doing things, but I am sure that we would be prepared to accept the word of the Minister on what the basic content of the protocol will be.

Wales Bill

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rowlands (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments, which are similar to those that I had the pleasure of moving in Committee. Since then, we have had a most interesting and informative letter— yet another Bourne letter, I may say; the collected correspondence of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, is becoming voluminous—that is extraordinarily revealing. It appears that if we have bad habits, other Assemblies, including the Welsh Assembly, are now catching them. The letter tells us:

“In 2015 and 2016, eight out of the twelve Acts passed by the Assembly included a power for Welsh Ministers to make consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament”—

that is, our Parliament—

“without any role for Parliament to scrutinise such secondary legislation”.

It turns out that the Assembly is doing exactly what we are threatening to do. It is bringing in legislation, including Henry VIII powers, that will then be used to amend legislation, primary and secondary, that this House has passed. That is a constitutional absurdity and we have to put a stop to it at both ends.

In fact, not only has the Welsh Assembly taken these Henry VIII powers in eight of its 12 Acts, it has exercised them already. In three cases it has amended our primary legislation without our knowing or being consulted. I do not know who was asked. I ask the Minister to elaborate on this, because it is all in his letter. Another four pieces of secondary legislation have been made by the Assembly that amend SIs made by the UK Parliament. So there are three pieces of primary legislation and four secondary that have been amended by the Welsh Assembly, using their Henry VIII powers, without either this House or the other House knowing.

I have the privilege of serving on two committees of this House that spend a lot of time on secondary legislation, as well as the Joint Committee with the Commons. They are most impressive committees. An enormous amount of effort is taken and thorough, diligent work is done by the legal advisers and the members of the Committees. We pore over our draft statutory instruments and report if there is any special reason—if we need to draw attention to defective drafting, in the case of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, or to vires issues or broader issues in the case of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

I am astonished that we spend all this time making sure that we bring to this House statutory instruments that are fit for purpose, yet I now find that another Assembly—the Welsh Assembly—has amended the statutory instruments that we have so carefully prepared. I do not know how it has amended them; I do not know the nature of the amendment—I will press the Minister to explain in a minute—but this is the sort of situation that we get into. It is a sort of inter-ministerial legislative stitch-up: “You can amend it in your legislation —it is sufficient, it saves time and it is convenient”. Neither House should be interested in ministerial convenience. It is our job to be inconvenient at times, and I believe we should be in this case.

Will the Minister now tell us, based on the letter he has sent us, which sections of which Acts of Parliament—primary legislation—the Assembly has amended? I do not have a clue; none of our committees seems to have found out about it. Secondly, which statutory instruments have been amended by the National Assembly and which paragraphs of our statutory instruments have been changed? We have to put a stop to this; we have to put our foot down. I will read the last paragraph of the letter:

“There was no requirement for Parliament to scrutinise any of this legislation”.

It appears that Parliament was not party to any of this legislation, only Ministers. That is not true. Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments belong to this Parliament as much as they belong to Ministers; they are as much our constitutional property as they are that of Ministers. We need to put our foot down and find ways and means to ensure that this will not happen again. It is now happening to us, as we threatened to do it to National Assembly legislation. Let us put a stop to it, please.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the submissions made by everyone who has spoken on this matter. If I may say so, my heart swelled with pride at the wholly magisterial and superb condemnation of the situation by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.

This provision has no place in the mores or principles of the 21st century. It is a remnant of a monarchical diktat. Although it does not seem to have been abused by government at all in recent years, but used only for something utterly mechanical, it is still the letter of the law—a law that, I submit, is indefensible. I hope the Minister will not seek to defend the indefensible when he replies.

In Committee, I cited a book written by a former Attorney-General, Sir Gordon Hewart, in the late 1930s, entitled The New Despotism. He was worried about the powers being exercised daily by Ministers in such a way as to circumvent Parliament. He was not dealing with this problem but with positive powers allowing Ministers to make regulations in a wide field. What he would have said of this, I just do not know. It is an anachronism that we must get rid of, because it has no place whatever in the fundamental basis of our parliamentary system in the 21st century.

My name is down to Amendment 68, which covers this situation and goes a little further. It deals not just with the Cardiff Assembly but Westminster. I appreciate there is a distinction between them, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, but I thought it proper to include both for this reason. Most of the legislation that affects Wales and creates devolutionary powers for Wales does not come from Cardiff—it comes from here. For that reason, I should have thought it entirely proper to include it in the condemnation, which should be regarded as utter and absolute, of these Henry VIII powers.

I therefore ask the Minister to say yes. It may well be that there is no abuse of these powers and that no modern Government would dream of abusing them, but that is the letter of the law. It is a dangerous law and one that has no place in our day. Let us get rid of it as soon as possible.

Wales Bill

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I want in particular to support my noble friend Lord Hain and his two amendments. For the whole of the Labour Government—from 1999 onwards, anyway—he and I held the position of Secretary of State for Wales between us. Two things emerged which were themes in that job—he has already touched on this. One was ensuring that there were good relations between the Assembly in Cardiff and the Government and Parliament in London. It seems to me that Amendment 120, which talks about the legislative consent Motion, is a vital link. I do not think that this Bill would be worth anything unless the Welsh Assembly agreed with it. It would be a pointless, meaningless Bill.

More particularly, on Amendment 120A, with regard to the fiscal framework, the Minister—and his boss—will know that relations between spending departments and the Treasury are never easy. Most of my time as a territorial Secretary of State was spent in negotiations with a less than benevolent Treasury, even when we thought that there was a lot of money about. It would try to stop and, occasionally, it would try to obstruct. I will not rehearse the arguments that we had some days ago on the devolution of income tax and a referendum but the danger with the devolution of income tax is that the Treasury will do its best to ensure that it keeps as much money as it can in negotiations between the Welsh Assembly—and the Secretary of State and Minister acting on the Assembly’s behalf—and the Treasury. There is an important issue here that, if the way in which the Assembly gets its money is to be dramatically changed—it is a dramatic change; I expressed earlier that I am quite dubious about the good effects of that—it will not necessarily be in terms of the democratic nature of income tax but the practical, realistic figures that result from its introduction. The people of Wales must not lose out upon the introduction of income tax powers for Wales and, ultimately, there should be a benefit to the people as a consequence of this new fiscal framework.

I know that we cannot hold up a crystal ball, but my noble friend made a very powerful case with regard to the resource base in Wales. We are not a rich nation and the amount of money that we can raise in income tax is low, as has been indicated even today in the figures that the Government have put out with the Autumn Statement. The amount that comes from every penny raised in Wales is effectively much less than can be raised in the rest of the United Kingdom, because of the need to ensure—as my noble friend rightly said—that we share and distribute our resources.

This amendment asks the Minister to tell us—on Report I assume, by which time there will hopefully have been an agreement on the fiscal framework—that the Bill should not proceed unless that fiscal framework is such that it is, at worst, neutral, and, at best, an improvement for the people of Wales in terms of what they get out of the settlement. There is no point in having a Bill that introduces the devolution of income tax if the Welsh people are going to be worse off because of the interrelationship between that and the block grant.

I have great pleasure in supporting all the amendments that have been proposed this evening.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support fervently and earnestly these amendments. I admire very much the eloquence and force with which those main arguments have been articulated, particularly, if I may say so, the magisterial rebuke that was delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.

It is not enough just to safeguard legislation in Cardiff. That of course, has to be done; it would be a nonsense to create a sister parliament—as it was described by Speaker Martin when the Cardiff Assembly was established—and, at the same time, to treat it as a meaningless plaything. But that is not the whole point. Most of the legislation they let into Wales is Westminster-based so that, in so far as protection is concerned, it would have to be protected not just in Cardiff but here as well, otherwise the main thrust of this issue would be missed.

I endorse everything that has been said by those who have held up this question of the template, as it were, of Clause 2. The Sewel protection, which was endorsed in Scottish legislation, has been perpetuated in this Bill. There is the danger that if nothing is done at all, the powers that we are discussing could make meaningless everything that is contained in Clause 2. I deliberately say “could make meaningless”, because there is the possibility that Clause 2 is meaningless already. In other words, if it were a case of Clause 2 being inserted in order to build a shield or carapace to protect the constitutional entity of Wales, it would be a very severe attack upon that protection. But, if in fact it were nothing more than merely declaratory of what was happening in any event, with the sovereign power of the Westminster Parliament deciding what was or was not necessary, it would of course be utterly meaningless. I do not think it necessary for us to dwell any further on that matter but it should be held up as a template for this piece of legislation.

My third point is that Henry VIII was no great benefactor as far as Wales was concerned. The whole purpose of the Acts of Union was not only to say that Wales should not exist but that it never had existed. It was said that,

“the dominion, principality, and country of Wales … is and ever hath been incorporated, annexed”,

and included within the greater realm of England. We never were there at all. Certainly, as far as Henry VIII clauses are concerned, they should be dealt with very carefully, because they erase the authority of Parliament —or they are, at any rate, in a position to threaten that, at their very worst.

I remember reading a book when I was a student by Sir Gordon Hewart, who was Attorney-General in, I think, the late 1930s. The book is called The New Despotism; it is an examination of the vast growth in powers delegated to Ministers by way of regulations. He saw this as a very great threat to parliamentary sovereignty. He was not talking about Henry VIII clauses but about the positive powers given to Ministers from day to day by way of regulations. If there was a new despotism then, now—three-quarters of a century and more later—that despotism has grown enormously. I would urge that thought be given to the exercise of delegated powers to Ministers. More and more are given every year and Parliament, even with the help of the massive effort of this House to scrutinise, finds it more and more difficult to sieve everything that goes through. And those powers are increasing. What Sir Gordon Hewart would have said of these negative powers I know not but, if there was a despotism three-quarters of a century ago, there is potential for very considerable despotism now.

I urge the House to accept the arguments put forward so magnificently by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge and indeed by those powerful bodies, the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee of this House. They are dangerous powers to use. We should use them with very great circumspection in any event. However, in Wales there is a principle involved—namely, that you do not set up a parliament which you intend to be a genuine devolved Assembly, and then treat it as a meaningless plaything.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard some stunning contributions this evening on an incredibly important aspect of the Bill. We have heard a devastating critique of Clause 53, in particular by my noble friend Lord Rowlands. I thank him for giving so much attention to an extremely difficult aspect of the Bill for the Assembly to live with. I urge the Minister to think very seriously about this clause, which is about repealing provisions in primary legislation. Within this House, there is an ability to look at those provisions, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said. Both Houses can have the opportunity to look at what is being proposed. However, that opportunity is not available to the Assembly. That needs to be underlined. It is deeply discourteous to the Assembly and wrong in principle.

If the Secretary of State proposes by order to modify parliamentary legislation or tidy it up, as my noble friend Lord Rowlands suggested, quite rightly he cannot do that without Parliament’s express agreement. In the same way, the Assembly’s legislation should be protected from modification up to and including repeal unless the Assembly is first asked to give its approval to a draft order proposing such a modification. The consent of the Assembly is needed, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, suggested.

Secondly, we seem to be continually going back to the problems with Clause 2. I again urge the Minister to listen to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said about that clause. I know that the Minister was not persuaded that there was a need to amend it as we suggested. But I think it was common ground that a parliamentary Bill modifying the Assembly’s legislative competence could proceed only with the Assembly’s consent. That is an important feature of the devolution settlements. But the problem is that Clause 53 envisages that the Secretary of State can, with the approval of each House of Parliament, modify any Act of Parliament in consequence of provisions in this Bill.

Given the subject matter of the Bill, the Acts vulnerable to such modification are most likely to be the earlier Welsh devolution legislation—the 2006 Act and the 2014 Act. If modifications to those Acts were proposed by way of a parliamentary Bill, the Assembly’s consent would be required. But the Government apparently envisage that, if the modifications are to be given effect by a Secretary of State’s order under Clause 53, it can proceed without the need for Assembly consent. That cannot be right.

Amendments 111, 113 and others in this group address the two points that I have outlined. Their effect in summary is that, if the Secretary of State proposes to use his order-making powers to modify Assembly legislation, that should be subject to prior Assembly consent. That requirement for prior Assembly consent in respect of a proposed Secretary of State order is also to apply if the order envisages a modification of a devolution enactment—in other words, a provision of either the 2006 Act or the 2014 Act. In that way, the fundamental principle that Assembly consent is required before its functions or competence can be modified is preserved. I urge the Minister to think very carefully before proceeding any further with the Bill. This fundamental principle undermines the democratic integrity of the Assembly.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hain for drawing attention to the point that a legislative consent Motion needs to be passed by the Assembly, and the financial framework settled. I hope that Treasury Ministers were listening to what he had to say, but I will make sure that the Assembly Minister who will negotiate this issue hears what my noble friend had to say, because he underlined some important issues. We cannot see Wales lose out financially as a result of the Bill.

I know that we have previously had reassurance from the Minister on the need for a legislative consent Motion before the Bill is passed. If he could underline that once more for us, it would give us confidence. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will talk us through the final sequencing of the next part of the consideration of the Bill. What will the sequencing be? When will the financial framework be necessary? When will the legislative consent memorandum be put before the Assembly? When will the Motion come before it? If the Minister could talk us through that sequencing, it would be very useful.

Wales Bill

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I very much regret that I must disagree respectfully with the submissions of the noble Baroness. Looking at it in a very narrow constitutional context, the issue is a massive irony. On the day the Supreme Court unanimously gave its judgment in the agricultural workers’ wages case, there was an epoch-making decision that changed the whole face of Welsh devolution. Until then, people had thought devolution was a fairly limited matter, limited to the specific expression of matters transferred, minus matters that were reserved. Nobody had conceived of what we might call the massive silent transfers, with which the decision of July 2014 was involved.

The irony we face is that that is the state of the law. It was the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. There is no appeal from it. That is the state of the law at present. If the Bill passes in its present form there is a massive row-back, diminution of status and deduction of authority as far as Wales is concerned compared with the decision. I know I need not press the point with the Minister, who is an excellent lawyer and well understands this matter. If there is no change in this matter, there is a massive diminution of authority for Wales compared with that decision. That is the irony.

When the then Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, stood, as noble Lords will remember, in the grey dawn in Downing Street after the Scottish referendum—which was after the Supreme Court decision we are referring to—and said that Wales is at the very heart of devolution, what if he had said, at the same time, “Mind you, there’ll be far fewer rights for Wales when we’ve finished with the Bill than there are at present”? What would people have said? That is exactly the situation I put to the House. It is so plain and obvious that I do not think there can be any controversion regarding it at all. Although one may say it is politic to change the situation, it means doing so in such a way that would diminish the rights of Wales relating to devolution massively.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the points made by my noble friends Lord Hain and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I, too, spoke during the passage of the then Trade Union Bill. I hope the Minister will reply to the debate with greater knowledge of the devolution settlement than his colleague did. Inevitably, his ministerial colleague looked at it from the point of view of employment throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. This is not about that, however: my noble friend made it absolutely clear that employment law is reserved. This is about public services in Wales and how industrial relations operate within them.

Since these public services are wholly and exclusively devolved, so should be the modest industrial relations consequences that flow from that. We are talking not about strikes, but about the possibility of public bodies allowing their workers to have their wages docked for trade union subscriptions and about allowing public workers to have full-time officials paid for in those organisations. These are not revolutionary or tremendously difficult issues; they are issues that affect public services. The constitutional point that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made is crucial to this, because it strikes at the heart of the devolution settlement in Wales. That is why the Welsh Assembly is taking it so seriously that it has promised it will legislate to change the trade union law in so far as it affects public services in Wales. That could be avoided at a stroke were the Government to agree to my noble friend’s amendment. They probably will not, but they will cause a huge amount of trouble to build up in the months and years ahead.

In the agricultural workers’ case, the Supreme Court made it clear that the service was devolved to Wales and that the industrial relations aspect of it was therefore devolved as well. Nothing could be clearer than that, so why are we entering a war with the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly on this issue? It is a pointless war which will not be won. I hope the Minister will give some hope to us. If he does not, I am sure the issue will be raised again on Report. If the amendment is unsuccessful then, the Welsh Assembly will pass a law and the Supreme Court might become involved. Why are the Government doing this when there is no need for it? The public services are devolved. I urge the Minister to think carefully about his reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, most of the debate has so far referred to the necessity to devolve control over Welsh broadcasting to the Welsh Assembly, and the arguments have all been made in structural terms, but I want to put in a word for S4C. It is very good. Its children’s programmes in the morning are outstanding and are carried worldwide in various languages. Its farming programmes and programmes about the natural world are also outstanding, and the sporting coverage probably takes up more of my weekends than anything else on television. In fact, I spend quite a lot of time in Scotland, and when I am there my wife is amused to see that, much of the time, I am watching S4C. I am saying nothing about Scottish broadcasting, but there we are. It is not just the sport, of course—it is the musical tradition as well. It is heartening to see so many young people taking part in classical music and choral works, as well as in much more modern music. It is excellent, and we cannot allow this debate to come to an end without making that clear.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I greatly appreciate the kind and generous words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on S4C. I support the amendment completely, but there is a possible compromise, if I may be so bold as to suggest it. Many months ago, when the question of the BBC charter was mentioned, I asked the Government whether they would be prepared to have in-built in the charter a guarantee on the adequate financing of S4C as well as on its independence and future. The reply that I received was somewhat anodyne, but I was assured that so great was the affection of Her Majesty’s Government for the Welsh language that I had nothing to fear at all. It may be that that is a compromise that would guarantee effectively the future of S4C, its independence and its finance, and I commend it to the noble Lord.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for moving this amendment on Welsh language broadcasting and other Welsh language media—and I note that that is the exception that is set down. I do not think that it is limited to S4C, as some noble Lords have assumed. It is not. I join other noble Lords in applauding the work of S4C; it is an extraordinarily strong and effective institution that does marvellous work for Wales in relation to the language and more broadly, and it has totemic significance and real significance and generates jobs in the Welsh media sector, which is important.

As the noble Lord said, it is absolutely right that the Silk commission recommended that funding the public expenditure element for S4C should be devolved to the Assembly. It was part of its recommendations but was not taken forward in the St David’s Day proposals: I understand that it was considered in that process but there was no consensus round it. It is also worth noting that as recently as June last year, the Welsh Government said, through Minister Ken Skates, that they could not support the devolution of broadcasting. Admittedly, that was said across the piece but it was the general position.

Where does that leave us? I will try to give an update on the financial commitments made by the Government, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and other noble Lords. The Government have agreed that funding for S4C—as opposed to Welsh language broadcasting—would be protected in 2016-17 at its current level of £6.8 million. The settlement for Exchequer funding in following years was set out at the 2015 spending review, and in September the BBC confirmed that it will protect licence-fee funding for S4C at £74.5 million until 2022. That is beyond the length of this Parliament, as noble Lords will be aware. The Government then committed to a comprehensive review of S4C in 2017, covering its remit, funding and governance to ensure that the broadcaster can continue to meet the needs of Welsh-speaking audiences in the future. I will endeavour to find out if we have any further details on the process and will write to noble Lords to update them on what the timetable is.

Broadcasting is different from almost any other area of activity in that it is international, national UK and national Wales. I am conscious of the fact that, historically, many people have been quite keen to see S4C’s budget settled in Westminster because they thought it was safer here that it would be in Wales—I had better be careful what I say. I notice a change of tenor in that position. Given that the Welsh Government do not seem to be seeking this, and given that there was no consensus in the St David’s Day process, I will have a look at it. I am very content to discuss this with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others to see if there is anything we can do to strengthen the position of S4C and the involvement of the Welsh Government—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has said on the issue of the difficulty of broadcasting. As I said, it is internationalised in many ways so is unique among activities.

I am very conscious of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was photocopying “Fireman Sam” scripts at S4C, so spoke with great authority. My first job in life was loading Britvic bottles on a production line. We had very different experiences: the noble Baroness was more clerical and managerial than I was in those heady student days. I appreciate that this is an important area and I will have another look at it and speak to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to see if there is anything we can do to strengthen this position. I hope that, with that, he will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Wales Bill

Lord Elystan-Morgan Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crickhowell (Con)]

My Lords, I plead total ignorance of the licensing regime. Are we satisfied that whoever is in charge of it, the fishing boats are actually going to be Welsh? I ask only because I seem to recall that long ago, when I was the Member of Parliament for Pembroke, Spanish fishing boats registered in the port of Milford Haven and somehow avoided the licensing regime. The licensing regime may now have dealt with that effectively but I should like confirmation that that is so.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

I support the amendment for the reasons that have been placed before the House. I raise one question that is common to this and to all the other matters involving the reserved elements of the Bill. I ask the Minister not so much as a Minster of the Crown but also as a distinguished professor of law who understands these issues well. Harken back to the undertaking that was given solemnly, and I have no doubt sincerely, by the then Prime Minister on the day after the Scottish referendum result when he said that Wales was at the very heart of devolution. To my mind, those were not intended to be empty words of adulation but to be an undertaking solemnly given to the people of Wales. I take them in that spirit. My question applies to this and to all the matters reserved that we regard as being trivial and unworthy of reservation. It is this: how does being at the heart of devolution square first with the principle of home rule, secondly with the concept that every decision should be taken at as local a level as possible and thirdly with a healthy interpretation of the concept of devolution? Those are not three different matters at all. At some point they seem to coalesce.

Ships in olden days took their position at noon, but nowadays with sophisticated technology that is no longer necessary. I would like to know what the position is at noon, as it were, in relation to Welsh devolution. I put that to the Minister with very great respect knowing that he will react reasonably to it.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on Amendment 53, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, who moved it. It seeks to reserve sea fishing outside the Welsh zone but makes an exception to that reservation for Welsh fishing boats. The notional effect of the amendment would be that the Assembly would have legislative competence for Welsh vessels outside the Welsh zone. However, in practical terms the amendment would have no effect because it seeks to reserve a power which the Assembly could not have. Under the Government of Wales Act 2006 and under this Bill, the Assembly’s legislative competence extends to the landmass of Wales and the sea adjacent to Wales out as far as the seaward boundary of the territorial sea; that is, 12 nautical miles, so as drafted it could have no effect. The Assembly has no legislative competence beyond that 12 miles—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Crickhowell (Con)]

My Lords, during earlier discussion on the Bill, many criticisms were made of the lack of information available to us, and I am enormously grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the letters that he has sent us that deal with a great many of those issues, give us a lot of information and promise us more when it becomes available—preferably before Report.

I do not intend to speak about Amendment 105, although the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke almost entirely about it—the one about reservoirs. I entirely understand the strength of feeling and his determination that what happened in the past should not happen again, and I am in no way critical of any proposal that he may put forward under that amendment.

However, Amendment 54 goes a good deal further. It talks about water. I speak with a good deal of experience because, for eight years, I was chairman of the National Rivers Authority and had to deal with some of the issues. We took great care about how we dealt with them. We had a Welsh region, but we were extremely careful to ensure that its work was carried out in the closest possible consultation and co-operation with the English regions that faced it across the frontier.

That was because, whatever the noble Lord may say, rivers do not exactly comply with national boundaries in a helpful way. The water that runs down them, the silt that it carries, the pollution that may be involved, and the fisheries and recreation are all affected, one way or another, by decisions taken on both sides of the water. Therefore, the closest co-operation and discussion is essential.

I refer first to the issue of drinking water and start with the river Severn, which, like the Wye, rises on Plynlimon. It does not originate in reservoirs; it is not, therefore, the subject of most of the points made by the noble Lord; but the water flows across the border and happens to provide a great deal of the drinking water for the midland region of England. Indeed, more than that, because the Severn-Trent River catchment area, an integrated system, carries the water on into eastern England and East Anglia, it is equally important for drinking water in those counties. Therefore, it is crucial that the closest possible co-operation happens on both sides of the border.

The other two main rivers with which we were—and I am—concerned are the Rivers Dee and Wye. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred in an earlier debate as a keen fisherman to the importance of the Dee, which flows in and out of England, as does the Wye. But for quite considerable stretches they form the border. As I say, the management of that border is of crucial significance in terms of pollution control, flood defence, fisheries and recreation—and the way in which it is managed is of equal importance to those who live on either side of the border.

At an earlier stage in our discussions, we were told that a working party was discussing the exact way in which these matters are handled between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Government at Westminster. I am sure that that is the right way in which to proceed. I hope that by the time we get to Report we will know exactly what the outcome is and will be able to form a view as to whether they meet entirely my concerns and those of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. But until we have those conclusions presented to us, the noble Lord’s initial Amendment 54 makes no sense at all.

When I was chairman of the National Rivers Authority, I depended enormously on the wisdom of a great Welshman and a great scientist, Professor Ron Edwards. He chaired our Welsh region. Ron Edwards, whose departure and death many of us deeply lament, would have regarded the proposal in its present form with the powerful criticism of which only he was able, and which I could not match. He would regard it as an absurdity, because he would want to have seen in place the kind of arrangements that I hope are now being discussed and which we will know about by the time we get to Report. For that reason, I am opposed to Amendment 54 but full of sympathy for Amendment 105.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I wholeheartedly support everything that has been said with such eloquence and conviction by my noble friend Lord Wigley. My feelings on what the Minister’s attitude might be are summed up in one sentence by a Welsh poet of many centuries ago, Dafydd Nanmor, “Gobeithiaw a ddaw ydd wyf”, “My hopes are for the future”. I am confident that the Minister, who I know has shown himself to be extremely sensitive to the rights and wrongs of situations such as these in Wales, will achieve a solution here that will be just and practicable.

In so far as the past is concerned, I remember very vividly the Tryweryn issue, although it is now more than half a century ago. There was a great deal of humbug involved and less than total honesty in the case put forward by Liverpool, which said, “The people of Tryweryn are deeply religious—they go to church on Sundays but they will not allow their neighbours in England to have a cup of cold water. Fie upon them”. Those are the exact words. But it was all bunkum; it was not drinking water but industrial water that Liverpool wanted, run down the River Dee and diverted from Queensferry to its own ends. It was sold to over 21 other authorities fringing Liverpool and they made millions upon millions out of it, because they chose to rape a Welsh valley. There is no other way of putting it. They stole the land of the living and desecrated the graves of the dead. I feel very strongly about this, even after half a century. I hope that I can forgive, but I doubt whether I can ever forget. However, that all now belongs to the past: Tryweryn must never happen again. I am confident that the Minister’s decision will be such that Tryweryn will not happen again. This does not mean to say that those privileges—call them what you will—that are entrenched in favour of English cities will be changed at all; they will remain as previously.