Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Hain

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

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. As I have told your Lordships before, I voted for him in 1964 when he was a Plaid Cymru candidate. I know that he has recovered from a serious illness to play an important part in this Bill and we are all very pleased to have him with us today. When he talked about the advantages of building a fence between neighbours, I wondered whether he was proposing to build one between England and Wales. I would support him in that—particularly if the English have to pay for it.

In preparation for this debate I spent the new year viewing five or six episodes of S4C’s excellent series “Y Gwyll”—“Hinterland”—kindly provided by S4C at its Christmas party before the break. It is a somewhat grim picture of policing in a rural Welsh community. I had some interest in that because my first five years were spent in Llangollen police station where my father was the station sergeant. His territory covered a large area of rural Denbighshire.

In one of the episodes of “Y Gwyll”, Chief Inspector Matthias has to confront a man armed with a shotgun in a remote cottage high up in the hills. It rang a bell since my father had to do precisely that. As my father approached him, the man shot himself rather than my father. In the denouement of the series, broadcast over the Christmas season, the retired chief superintendent turned out to have murdered the policeman investigating his past while his replacement, the current chief superintendent, murdered his predecessor in turn—which did not accord with my memory of the Denbighshire constabulary of those days.

The series depicts the Welsh language, the people, the way of life, the rural remoteness and the stretched facilities, emphasising the different society and community in which we live. It is not surprising that a significant majority of Welsh people, when asked for the purposes of an opinion poll in connection with the Silk commission, were of the view that the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government should have responsibility for policing in Wales. Indeed, devolution of policing was supported by the Welsh Government, the chief constables, the majority of police commissioners, the Police Federation and other professional police bodies.

The Silk commission reported in favour, although it was careful to say that the devolution of the governance and administration of the police would not involve the devolution of legislative competence for police powers or the criminal law. It also did not recommend devolution of matters dealt with at the UK level by the National Crime Agency—serious and organised crime, fraud, cybercrime and child protection. However, proposed new Section B5 of Schedule 1 to the Bill reserves policing to the Home Office—and that is an argument for another day.

My Amendment 81 deals with subsidiarity, leaving out the reservation of anti-social behaviour to the Westminster Government which the Bill proposes. Anti-social behaviour is essentially a matter for the local community. That is what is reflected in all the parts of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that are specifically reserved in proposed new Section B6 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.

Under Part 1 of the 2014 Act, which deals with injunctions, applications for an injunction may be made by a list of bodies, the first of which is the local authority. The next one is a housing provider, and only third on the list is the chief officer of police. Other bodies which may apply for an injunction include the Natural Resources Wales body and Welsh Ministers exercising security management functions.

Similarly, under Chapter 1 of Part 4, community protection orders, the initiative to issue a community protection order against an individual or a body lies with the local authority, where it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the conduct of that person is having a detrimental effect of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of those in the locality, and that the conduct is unreasonable. It is for the local authority to apply for the order and to take action if the individual or body fails to comply with the notice.

Your Lordships will see that anti-social behaviour is already dealt with at the local authority level. In Chapter 2 of Part 4, it is the local authority alone which may make a public spaces protection order if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that activities carried out in a public place within the authority’s area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality and that the activities are unreasonable and of a persistent or continuing nature. Again, the local authority applies for the order, the local authority enforces it.

Under Chapter 3 of Part 4, power to make and exercise a closure notice for premises associated with nuisance or disorder rests with either a police officer of at least the rank of inspector or the local authority.

Part 5 gives power to landlords to recover possession on anti-social behaviour grounds, and Part 6 is headed “Local involvement and accountability” and lays down requirements for the police to consult with local authorities and community leaders in the preparation of community remedy documents, the purpose of which is to require an individual to carry out certain specific actions.

The whole of Parts 1 to 6 of the 2014 Act is concerned with what a local authority, in the main, or a local policeman does in relation to problems within the community. It indicates how localised the legislation is. It is only sensible because other agencies which are concerned with the same sort of thing are devolved—the health service, education, ambulance and fire services, and so on.

The other powers reserved to Westminster in Section B6 refer to dangerous dogs or dogs out of control. It is a perfect example of why this should be devolved—devolution works. I am sure that many of your Lordships will recall the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It was regarded as an example of knee-jerk legislation and has always been thought to be utterly unsatisfactory. After toying with the idea of pet anti-social behaviour orders, an idea first put forward in the satirical political show “The Thick of It,” the Government passed Part 7 of the 2014 Act, which made some patchwork reforms. It is still not satisfactory.

Meanwhile, up in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament passed the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which dealt with the whole question comprehensively and sensibly. The initiative in Scotland lies not with the police but with an authorised officer who is defined as an officer appointed for that purpose by a local authority. Each local authority in Scotland must appoint at least one such officer, skilled in the control of dogs and with the capacity to instruct and advise others in matters relating to the control of dogs. The Act deals with the control of dogs and with the prosecution and punishment of owners of dangerous dogs in Scotland. Why does Westminster want to reserve to Westminster power over dangerous dogs and their control when Scotland has legislated so effectively? We have passed—or, rather, the Welsh Assembly has passed—the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014. If the Assembly can be allowed to legislate for the control of horses, why not dogs?

When I was living in the Llangollen police station, we had a Pembrokeshire corgi called Rex who, having been reared by my aunt, only understood Welsh. He was not one of those brown and white royal jobs—he was a proper dog, black and white with a long tail. During the last election, my wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and myself were canvassing near Pistyll Rhaeadr, the famous waterfall in Montgomeryshire, one of the seven wonders of Wales. She came to me rather disturbed and said that there was a dog in the next farm and that it was a bit snappy. I patted her rather condescendingly on the head, said leave it to me and went through the gate. Sure enough, there was a black and white Welsh collie, which kept jumping up at me. I said, remembering my youth, “Steddwch”, which means “Sit”—and the dog bit me. Surely, that was an issue not for Whitehall but one for Cardiff.

[Lord Hain]

My Lords, how to follow that? I shall speak to Amendment 90 in my name and in those of my noble friends Lord Murphy, Lord Kinnock and Lady Morgan. I begin by expressing my disappointment that the Minister has not been able to persuade the rest of the Government to think again on this issue and that they continue to press ahead with their transparent move, not simply to go beyond overriding decisions that the Welsh Government have taken since 2011, but deliberately to claw back powers from the National Assembly. From everything the Minister has told your Lordships, and much of what the Bill contains, this is supposed to be a pro-devolution, not an anti-devolution, Bill. But in the way in which devolved public services are configured, and especially their staff relations organised, it is repatriating powers that are already the preserve of the Assembly. Surely, that cannot be right.

When we considered this amendment in Committee, the Minister acknowledged our shared belief that employment law is, and should remain, a reserved matter. He said that,

“the underlying legislative framework concerning rights and responsibilities in the workplace must be reserved”.

I agree with that. He went on to say that the,

“system we have allows workers to be clear on their rights, whether they are in the public sector or the private sector”.

Again, I agree. However, he then said that this,

“is a fundamental principle and I cannot accept that the law underpinning the terms and conditions of public sector workers should be different from the law that underpins the rights of other workers”.—[Official Report, 15/11/16; col. 1384.]

On that point, we diverge.

My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke previously about the fact that the Welsh Assembly has long had considerable powers—for example, over doctors’ pay, terms and conditions. The principle has been conceded and accepted by the Government, ironically, as it has been in this very Bill in another respect. A government amendment to give the Assembly legislative competence over teachers’ pay and conditions has been accepted as part of this Bill. For the Minister to somehow then argue that it is impossible to disentangle fundamental employment rights from the terms and conditions of employees in the devolved public services seems somewhat irrational and contradictory, to say the very least. For the sake of clarity, I hope the House will permit me a short time to highlight the four different elements of this and to unpick a number of aspects that have been conflated during previous debates.