Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a little overwhelmed and daunted by the fact that I am speaking on the Wales Bill from the Front Bench with no fewer than five former Secretaries of State going to participate today, on top of other Welsh constitutional experts who have been involved in Welsh politics since before I was born.

I am also aware that the Minister leading for the Government was the principal architect in ensuring that the Conservative Party dropped its opposition to devolution in Wales and engaged constructively in the process, and for this he deserves to be commended. In addition to this, he made a distinguished and valuable contribution to the Silk reports, which of course were supposed to have served as the basis for this Wales Bill. Because of my great respect for the Minister, I will make every effort to resist the temptation to ask him why he has changed his mind on so many issues since his transformation from being a key member of the Silk committee to becoming a Welsh Minister.

I declare my interest in this Bill as an elected Member of the National Assembly for Wales. I will start by being kind: the Minister is correct that this Bill is a considerable improvement on the draft Bill introduced in October 2015, which was so fundamentally flawed that the Government had to withdraw it in the face of almost unanimous criticism of its viability. The necessity test in relation to private and criminal law has now been removed, there has been a reduction in the number of reserved areas and there is improvement in the system for Minister of the Crown consents. We welcome the fact that the National Assembly for Wales will be permanent, and that it will now have power to determine its own electoral processes, its size and the electoral system for National Assembly elections. We welcome the fact that, among other things that the Minister outlined, the Assembly will have enhanced powers in energy projects, including fracking, and new transport responsibilities. We are also pleased that the changes were made in response to scrutiny of the draft Bill, and I am particularly pleased that social care regulation and inspection will be under the control of the Assembly, following my call for the establishment of a national care service for Wales last week.

But—and this is a huge but—the Bill in its current form is complex, inaccessible, unclear and will not settle the devolution issue for Wales as was the intention. There has been a failure to incorporate any fundamental or firm constitutional principles within the Bill, such as clarity, stability, legitimacy and subsidiarity. It is poorly drafted and ill conceived. The opportunity to introduce a consolidated Bill, which would have meant that there would no longer be a need constantly to refer to previous Government of Wales Acts, has been missed. The lack of clarity means that there are some significant points where there will still be a need to refer to the Supreme Court to seek clarity on where power should lie—a costly and unnecessary exercise.

We believe that the Bill has been rushed, to no clear purpose, and goes against the spirit, expressed in the Bill, of “collaborative working”. It also fails in its aspirations, which were set out in the St David’s Day proclamation, for a durable and lasting settlement. The unwillingness of the UK Government and Whitehall departments to deliver a settlement that matches the clarity and accessibility of other devolution settlements, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, is also disappointing. I am sure that the Minister will have taken note of the severe criticism of the Bill published by the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the National Assembly, most notably, perhaps, its assertion that for the first time ever there is a rollback of current powers vested in the National Assembly.

We are living in extremely turbulent political times. The EU referendum has thrown the whole legislative framework of this country into turmoil. The pressures on the unity of the union will be tested severely in the next few years as we extract ourselves from the European Union. This constant piecemeal approach to constitutional developments in Wales is disrespectful, and the Government need to call a constitutional convention to prepare a route map in order to keep our United Kingdom together. This constant nibbling away at the constitution will ultimately erode the unity of the United Kingdom and will create divisions more emphatic than the ones which we have just witnessed with the EU referendum.

Integral to the Bill is a recognition that Bills proposed by the UK Government which will impact on National Assembly legislative competence will no longer be allowed to pass in both Houses of Parliament unless they receive the consent of the Assembly by means of a legislative consent Motion. Let me be as clear as I can be: the Government absolutely must respect the view of the National Assembly in relation to this Bill, and in particular the outcome of the legislative consent Motion. We know that central to this will be the need to come to a definitive position on the fiscal framework for Wales. This fiscal framework will need to give an absolute reassurance, not just to Assembly Members but to the public in Wales, that the country will not be worse off financially, now or in the future, if we were to adopt some of the measures suggested in the Bill. This is particularly true in relation to the devolution of income tax. We need an assurance that we can borrow significantly against any income tax devolved, and that we would not get a worse deal than Scotland. It would give us a great deal of reassurance if the Minister could today assure us that the opinion of the National Assembly will be respected in relation to this Bill.

Some parts of the Bill require additional work. There is no point in the Assembly being able to make laws if it then has difficulty enforcing them. It would be useful to have greater clarity on the scope of the Assembly’s ancillary powers to enable it to make laws which are effective and enforceable. Areas in the Bill where unnecessary potential interference is suggested simply seem heavy-handed. This will require intensive intergovernmental working with additional bureaucracy and administration, which contrasts with the Government’s own commitment, and that of the Silk commission and the Richard commission, to the need to cut constitutional red tape. There is an urgent need to strengthen intergovernmental and interparliamentary relations, as has been suggested on more than one occasion.

It is a shame that the Bill has not aligned legislative and executive competence more closely, and that there continues to be reliance on transfer of functions orders. We cannot understand this, and we look forward to the Minister justifying why all functions currently exercisable by a Minister of the Crown within devolved areas cannot be devolved and transferred to Welsh Ministers.

I am aware that there is real disquiet on our Benches about the introduction of income tax powers without the need for a referendum. I know that many noble Lords will want to pursue this issue with vigour.

As the Minister suggested, England and Wales share the same legal jurisdiction. Since 2011, however, a body of Welsh law has already been built which is distinct from that of England and Wales. Given the very low number of Welsh-only laws, we believe that currently it is unnecessary to establish a separate legal system. However, we believe that in time complexities relating to the training of judges and lawyers will need to be considered. The accessibility of the law to ordinary citizens is also paramount. We believe, therefore, that it is necessary to insert a clause requiring the UK Government and the Welsh Government to keep the situation under review.

The move to a reserved powers model is something which in principle we welcome. We had hoped, however, that this would deliver the “clarity, coherence and stability” which the Government had announced was the intention of the settlement. While I believe that we have to accept that there are some areas where introducing a reserved powers model would smooth out the creases of the current devolution settlement and give clear lines, the system is more difficult to accept if the consequence is the rolling back of the powers of the Welsh Government in areas which have hitherto been “silent” areas, where the Welsh Government have consequently been able to act.

One of the worrying aspects of the move to the reserved powers model is that, if a matter “relates to” a reserved matter, it is not within the Assembly’s power to legislate. The question of how a provision will be assessed when deciding whether it “relates to” a reserved matter will be determined using a “purpose test”—in other words, whether the purpose of the provision is devolved or not. We will seek a great deal more clarity on the issue of the purpose test in Committee.

As I suggested, while in principle we agree with the move to a reserved powers model, the next question is, inevitably: do we agree and accept all the areas where the UK Government have insisted on retaining power to themselves? We accept and welcome that the list has been reduced since the draft Bill, but we have noted some attempts to reduce the list by lumping some subjects together which were previously counted individually. For example, architects, auditors and health professionals were previously three categories; now all three are included in one category.

We were promised a more comprehensive rationale and justification for why certain areas were reserved, and we do not believe that the Explanatory Notes currently provide the reasoning that we seek. I will do what I can to stop Members on the Labour Benches from putting amendments down on every reservation so that the Government will have to justify each one on the Floor of the House. However, noble Lords might have noticed that I have some pretty heavy hitters on my side, and I may not be able to stop them. Therefore, if the Minister can come up with better justifications for those reservations prior to Committee, we will be grateful.

It is also worth emphasising that it is not simply a matter of reducing the number of reservations on the list in new Schedule 7A; we should like to see some of the reservations redrafted or exceptions added so that the breadth of the reservations is limited, creating more legislative space for the Assembly in which to act. At this stage I will give just a few examples of where we have some concerns: employment matters with regard to devolved public services; licensing and the sale of alcohol; the community infrastructure levy; railway franchises; and water, which I need not emphasise the sensitivity of since the construction of the reservoir at Tryweryn.

In its current form, the Wales Bill is wholly unsatisfactory. We are disappointed that it has been rushed, both in drafting and in the depth of scrutiny, and in some instances we are seeing powers being taken away from Wales. The people and the businesses of Wales have the right to know and to understand the constitutional and legal framework under which they live and work. In these uncertain and unstable political and economic times, now, more than ever, people need a clear understanding of where responsibility lies. The Bill does not give us that clarity. It is a real shame that the democratic will of the people of Wales, as expressed in particular in the 2011 referendum, has been missed, that the opportunity to produce an aspirational settlement has been missed, and that the chance to produce a vision for the future direction of Wales has been missed.

Despite this, I reassure the Minister that we are well disposed to working with him during the passage of the Bill, and we hope that he will accept our interventions in the spirit of ensuring that we produce the best possible Bill for the people of Wales.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) : House of Lords
Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judge]

The Minister may well be right, but I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, talking about “normal” in the context of Clause 2. At some stage I want to make the point, so perhaps I may just finish making it, because I do not want to take long about it. Please can we look at the matter in the context of Clause 53 and, in particular, Clause 53(6) concerning statutory instruments, powers vested in the Secretary of State, affirmative resolution, and so on:

“unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”?

It totally omits reference to the National Assembly for Wales, yet in Clause 2 we are told that the Government will not normally legislate without the consent of the Assembly. Somewhere along the line, this bridge has to be crossed.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendments 4 and 5 to establish a justice commission for Wales. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I apologise for not having the legal background or brilliance of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Judge, to speak as I would like on the amendments, but I will do my best.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made some relevant and serious points which need to be considered. It is premature to establish a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales, but there is without question an issue that needs to be addressed. I shall briefly summarise the background and explain why the commission is needed and what it would achieve.

There is clear consensus among constitutional and legal experts that there is a problem here that must be addressed. The creation of the National Assembly as a legislature with primary legislative powers, operating within a single jurisdiction of England and Wales, creates a situation which will throw up difficulties in the medium to long term. That single legal jurisdiction, to quote from those who have promoted this Bill in the other place, “has served us well”. Yes, it may have done that, but it has served us well in different times. It served us well when the laws that applied across England and Wales were the same laws—when this place was the only legislature that could enact the laws of the jurisdiction. That is no longer the case and has not been for some time.

It is worth emphasising the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. There is no question but that the UK’s Government’s anxiety to protect the joint jurisdiction is the source of many problems in the Bill. We accept that some constraints have been removed, but there remain many reservations and restrictions whose primary purpose is to protect the consistency of law across England and Wales. The problem is that that consistency no longer exists: the horse has already bolted. The reality is that there is already a growing divergence of law which is the inevitable consequence of legislative devolution. The law on education, planning, the environment and social services is now fundamentally different in Wales. Without reform of the jurisdiction to reflect this divergence, there are risks to the rule of law and the administration of justice. By necessity, a single jurisdiction involves a single body of law that extends across its territory. A single jurisdiction implies that the law is the same across that territory. The laws of England and Wales—already vast—must now absorb the increasing divergence between laws that apply only to Wales and those that apply only to England. This is highly complex, so how can we be sure that the citizens will understand the law or even that solicitors, barristers and judges will apply the correct law? This is not a debating point: these are real practical risks and they are increasing.

This issue demands a serious response and the UK Government see no need for concern on the grounds that this single jurisdiction has served Wales well. That misses the point. The shared jurisdiction served Wales well for four and a half centuries when Wales did not have its own legislature. That is no longer the case. The single jurisdiction is out of sync with the way that Wales is governed. It has not caught up with reality. But it is okay, because we have a glimmer of hope. All is going to be fine because the Ministry of Justice has set up a working group—what in Wales we call a committee—of Whitehall officials. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to this. Its birth was not auspicious: it was a party to which the Welsh Government were apparently invited but had not received their invitation. Never mind: it has now met, but we and the Welsh Government are in the dark as to its progress. Will the Minister enlighten us on some key points in relation to that working group? How many meetings has the group held? What engagement has there been with legal practitioners who understand the day-to-day realities of practising law in Wales? What is the work programme and when can we expect to see the report? Will we have it before Report stage?

It is an incredible coincidence that today, when we are debating this, the Welsh Government have received an invitation to the working group’s second meeting. That is great news, but we should be concerned that that progress is not a serious way of demonstrating a commitment to the fundamental importance of this work. This is why we think it is important to bring forward a commission on which the Welsh Government have equal status and to which they are able to bring their expertise and that of those who have real knowledge of the Welsh justice system. We have no confidence that this informal working group will be capable of producing a serious response to the challenges I have outlined. Maybe it will: let us see if we can see something before Report stage. It is important to have a much more credible mechanism for taking this issue forward which will be independent of government and consist of senior judiciary and other practitioners who already have the authority and expertise required. Such a mechanism would provide a forum for developing solutions to problems that cannot be avoided and would be transparent in producing an annual report on progress against an agreed remit.

For all its flaws, one of the positive impacts of this Bill is that we have had to focus our minds on this key issue. It is clear that the single jurisdiction is no longer fit for purpose in its current form. What exactly should come in its place and how it should operate are questions that necessitate detailed analysis of the situation and the evidence of the problems caused. Much thought needs to be given to what is the right way forward. The relevant body should comprise those with most experience of the problems, and legal and constitutional experts adept at finding solutions. These problems will not go away. The proposed commission would provide a mechanism for addressing them. That is the purpose of this amendment. I hope that the Minister will support it.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, those of your Lordships who were here at Second Reading will recall that I told the House that when I was in my 20s and full of ambition and great principle, I thought that it was necessary, when drafting a Bill for the parliament of Wales back in 1967, to have a separate Welsh jurisdiction to determine the laws that that parliament would pass. As I indicated at Second Reading, I have changed my view; I think it is a matter of complete practicality. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who said that the joint jurisdiction has not served Wales well. There is no joint jurisdiction. There is a single jurisdiction and it has operated over four centuries to provide the same standard of justice in Wales as in England. When he was called on to give an example of where it goes wrong, he talked about courts, as though a Welsh parliament would create new Crown Courts west of Swansea or in mid-Wales and would have the funds, judicial power and practitioners to man such a system. It is purely a practical question. To demonstrate that, I quote from the noble Lord’s amendment. Under the heading “A6 Judiciary”, the amendment states:

“All of the judges, judicial office-holders”,

and others,

“become judges … of both … courts”—

that is, the existing judges would continue to operate in both England and Wales. The amendment then proposes:

“All of the persons by whom the jurisdiction of the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is exercisable become the persons by whom the functions of both of the courts to which that court corresponds”.

In other words, practitioners and judges in criminal courts could operate in both England and Wales. Where is the separate jurisdiction in that? Proposed new Section A6(3) states that all the existing judges and others should become judges in the courts of both England and Wales. The same situation is proposed for family courts and the legal profession. Therefore, the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is that existing judges and practitioners should operate in the courts of both countries. How could that be possible if there were such a distinct and arcane system of Welsh law that only Welsh practitioners could understand it? Lawyers are accustomed to dealing with separate parts of the law, whether it is Welsh law, administrative law, the law relating to trusts or whatever. Practitioners and judges deal with differences between the laws passed by the parliament in Wales and those passed by the Parliament in England. There is no problem with judges doing precisely that. At the moment an Administrative Court sits in Wales and deals with legislation passed by the Welsh Assembly quite adequately—the Lord Chief Justice and an old friend of mine, Mr Justice Wyn Williams, sat in such a case last week—and no problem arises from that. However, the hare has been started, and for that reason I have advanced, as a matter of practicality, my Amendment 10.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. As your Lordships can well imagine, it is a probing amendment which, depending on the response that we receive in this short debate, may escalate into something more substantial. The Bill reads:

“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly”.

So what does “normally” really mean?

I have searched through the Bill and have failed to find any definition. I am not aware that the term is so commonly used in other legislation that there is a generally accepted meaning as far as use in legislation is concerned. In an attempt to seek clarification, my colleagues in the other place contacted the House of Commons Library, which confirmed that there is no legal status for “normally”. In this instance, it is inherently vague and asking for trouble, because it leaves every interpretation open to the courts—at least potentially so.

I am aware that questions on this matter arose also in the Commons and that the only response which Ministers were able to give was:

“The ‘not normally’ element of both the convention and clause”—

in relation to legislative consent—

“is essential as it acknowledges parliamentary sovereignty”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/16; col. 784.]

Following a further check with the Library, it confirmed that every Act which requires the assent of the Assembly already contains a clause that confirms parliamentary sovereignty. Including “normally” here achieves nothing but confusion. That is simply unsatisfactory. We cannot make a law on such a basis. “Normal” is an immensely subjective term. What is deemed normal by one person may be regarded as highly abnormal by another.

Noble Lords may be aware of my work in the field of learning disabilities. At one time, people with such disabilities were referred to as “mentally abnormal” or “educationally abnormal”. That carried a huge stigma and was rightly consigned to the dustbin of history. The concept of normality is loaded with preconceptions and it should never be enshrined in law, certainly not without a very tight definition.

The word “normally” is a Trojan horse at the heart of this legislation. It is totally at the whim of Ministers at Westminster as to what it means. It enables them to use this loophole exactly as they might wish. It would have been more honest to write into the Bill that a Westminster Minister may intervene just when and how he or she wishes on matters falling into this category of Assembly powers.

This is just not good enough. I ask for the support of the House in removing the term if the Government cannot bring forward an acceptable term or some believable explanation for its existence in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7 and 8. These amendments are designed to clarify the circumstances in which the National Assembly’s legislative consent is required for parliamentary Bills. As drafted—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has suggested—the Bill provides that Parliament will not “normally” legislate with regard to devolved matters without the Assembly’s consent. He has just pointed out the difficulties in the definition of “normally”, but neither is there any definition of “devolved matters”. Indeed, elsewhere, the Bill speaks of “reserved matters” or matters that are “not reserved”. It does not use the language of “devolved matters” at all.

This provision closely follows an equivalent in the Scotland Act 2016. Your Lordships might recall that the equivalent provision in the Bill leading to that Act was the subject of rather anxious debate. The concern was that the provision was incomplete in specifying when the Scottish Parliament’s consent was required for UK parliamentary legislation. The provision had been included, following a recommendation from the Smith commission that the Sewel convention be given statutory underpinning. Unfortunately, the Government, in implementing that recommendation, gave the narrowest possible interpretation of the convention in writing it into the Bill.

While it is true that, as originally formulated, the convention proposed that a devolved legislature’s consent was required only in respect of a provision within its devolved legislative competence, it soon came to be accepted that consent should also be required if a parliamentary Bill proposed a modification of that very competence. I will simplify this: if the UK Government wanted to bring in a law on an issue where the Assembly already had the power to legislate—so on agriculture or education—the understanding is that that would not be possible without the Assembly’s agreement. However, if the UK Government proposed to change the Assembly’s powers to legislate, it is not clear that that Assembly agreement would be necessary.

Demonstrating that this was not a matter of controversy, the Government have repeatedly said—and the Minister himself has said on this Bill—that a Bill that radically modified the National Assembly’s legislative competence could not be passed without the Assembly’s formal consent, even though that might not appear obvious from the language of devolved matters. This issue is highlighted in the report on this Bill by the Constitution Committee of this House:

“There were important differences between the Sewel Convention as referred to in the Bill and the Sewel Convention as understood in practice. The Bill framed the Convention in terms narrower than those in which it is usually understood, by failing to refer to that limb of the Convention that is concerned with UK legislation that adjusts the scope of devolved competence”.

It should not be a matter of dispute between the UK and Welsh Governments. The difficulty is that, although the two Governments agree on the circumstances in which the Assembly’s consent is required for parliamentary Bills, the Bill does not reflect that common understanding. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is simply to define what is meant by “devolved matters”. In so doing, it sets out the agreed circumstances in which the Assembly’s legislative consent is required for parliamentary Bills. Those circumstances importantly include the situation of the present Bill, which modifies the Assembly’s legislative competence.

This is quite a useful clarification that could be achieved without raising any new issues of principle that might be of concern to the Government. I hope at least that the Minister will be able to reaffirm that when a parliamentary Bill comes forward with proposals for modifying a devolved legislative competence, such a Bill—as he has promised with this Bill—can proceed only with the relevant legislature’s formal consent.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I support both the noble Lord and my noble friend in their remarks. My noble friend Lady Morgan has outlined very well what “devolved matters” means in the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, quite rightly spoke about the sloppiness of the term “normally”. I think that it opens up huge possibilities for rift between Cardiff and Westminster unless there is a proper definition, if the Government want this, as to when the Assembly is not allowed to pass its comments upon legislation going through this Parliament which affects so-called devolved matters. Is it for the Secretary of State for Wales or a Cabinet committee to decide what is “normal”? No, this is an absolute recipe for conflict between the Assembly and Parliament, and between the two Governments. I hope that the Minister will take this back and either strike it completely from the legislation or, if they insist that there should be qualifications as to when the Assembly cannot utilise its powers, these should be defined very precisely indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness said about the charitable status of Welsh universities, and it is important that the Minister goes back and examines whether it is put at risk by this part of the Bill.

I cannot for the life of me understand Amendment 14, which excludes the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales from the Welsh public authorities list. It is not a university; it is a body that administers funding to the universities. It gets all its money from the Welsh Government, so I cannot quite understand the amendment, particularly because a recent review of non-compulsory post-16 education in Wales indicated that this body will be replaced by a new body dealing with funding for higher education and further education, which is a good thing. The amendment is an incongruous insertion when the argument is about universities and, to a certain extent, further education colleges somehow losing their charitable status, independence, right to borrow and so on. I would value the Minister’s comments on why the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales is part of this scene.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, Schedule 3 will provide some welcome clarity about competence in relation to Welsh public authorities. So long as Assembly Bills meet the competence tests in the Wales Bill, the Assembly will be able to legislate in relation to Welsh public authorities without needing to seek the consent of the UK Government.

Most of the UK Government’s amendments add to or clarify the list, and we support them. We are also very content with the removal of special health authorities. I understand that they will be treated differently and need not be in Schedule 3. I beg to differ with Liberal Democrat Peers who suggested removing from the list of institutions in Wales a reference to the further or higher education sectors, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the regulated institutions under the Higher Education (Wales) Act, to which my noble friend referred.

We do not think it appropriate to support any amendments which might act in such a way as to restrict the legislative competence of the National Assembly in respect of these further and higher education bodies. Having said that, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for outlining the real concerns of the institutions, which need to be addressed. I thank the Minister for agreeing to clarify this issue and for looking at attempting to reflect that special position and ensure that they can continue with their current status.

However, I am afraid that removing these institutions could create uncertainty in the future over the need for ministerial consent where a provision of an Assembly Act confers functions on such a body or removes them from it. No such uncertainty exists in relation to the current legislative competence of the Assembly, and the uncertainty would not arise in the future if these bodies remained on the list.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for participating in the debate on this group of amendments. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I will just perhaps restate some of the points I made earlier. Very much on the basis that we will still cover these institutions, if there is a way of looking at the nomenclature, such that we can seek to ensure that they have the continued strength and independence that they enjoy at the moment, we will do that, as that is very much in the best interests of Wales. We have first-class educational institutions at university and further education level, and we want to maintain that but at the same time ensure that they are brought within this part of the legislation.

I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, made about the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and agree it does not seem to be in the same category as the universities. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, agrees with that. That is different in nature, but if there is a way of protecting the universities and the further education bodies and their charitable status, at the same time as covering them within the Welsh public authorities, universities and so on, I am keen to do that, and will ensure that we look at the Bill in that regard. I thank noble Lords who brought forward these amendments but urge them not to press them at this stage.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

We should come clean to the people of Wales. They should be offered a package. They need to know what the future fiscal framework will be. We need to see the reform of Barnett, and to see the structures of funding and transfer payments across the UK clarified and in place. We need to know what the scope for borrowing will be, taking into account the possibility that interest rates will be higher and that it may not be at all easy to service that borrowing. In that context, the people of Wales should be allowed to take the decision about whether or not they wish to be made subject to an income tax-varying power exercised by their own legislature within Wales.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I was 12 in 1979 when we had the first referendum on whether we wanted devolution to come to Wales, and I have had a little taster this afternoon of what it must have been like during that campaign. But we have had a different result from that in 1979; the Assembly has been established for 19 years and it is maturing and developing.

I thank my noble friends Lord Murphy and Lord Hain for tabling this amendment because this issue is worthy of debate. I am afraid the people of Wales were told when we established the Assembly that we would put the issue of income tax-varying powers to them in a referendum. We have heard today what a risky business referendums are; I concur—I also have the scars from the recent referendum—and, let me tell you, I am no longer a fan of referendums.

It is worth repeating the question asked by my noble friend Lord Murphy: what has changed since the last Bill that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, brought through the House, and what is the difference between that Bill and this one? What has made the Government change their mind on this issue? It is worth drawing attention to the fact that Wales is not a rich country. My understanding is that only about 6,000 people in Wales pay the highest rate of income tax, those who earn over £150,000, while only one in 16 pay the 40p higher rate of income tax. We are not talking about people that it is easy to tax, so it is worth remembering and understanding that this is not going to be a power that is easily exercisable.

However, I beg to differ with my colleagues on this issue, because times have changed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, the Assembly has moved a long way during those 19 years. On top of that, we have the issue of austerity. The IFS said recently that, by 2020, there will have been an 11% cut since 2010 in funding coming to Wales. That is hitting some of the poorest members of our society. Austerity is hitting not only our revenue budgets but our capital budgets. It is all very well to talk about borrowing money from the European Investment Bank, but we do not even know whether we will be able to access that kind of funding in future.

Why do I support the amendment? I support the amendment because, at this difficult time, borrowing against this income stream will be essential if we want to invest in our infrastructure in Wales. There is demand for better infrastructure. People want improvements in Wales. That demand is there. However, it is important to understand—we will come to this in the next amendment—

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I do not think that she is speaking in favour of the amendment; she might want to clarify that.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I am not speaking in favour of the amendment because of the next amendment. We need an increase in the borrowing powers because of the funding stream and the devolution of taxation. That is critical to investment in Wales.

We know that the Welsh Government and the UK Government have an understanding and that there will be an agreement on the fiscal framework before we enter the next phase of the Bill. It is important that, in that fiscal framework, we have an offset to the block grant in return for that tax revenue. We need to see how that offset will interact with the Barnett formula, and we need the funding floor to be made permanent. It is critical that we should not accept a situation where Wales will be materially worse off as a consequence of devolving taxation. That would not be good for the people of Wales?

We expect the Minister to negotiate that with the Finance Minister in the Assembly, but can he can assure us that that fiscal framework will be resolved before we have an understanding? We will come in the next amendment to the amount that may be borrowed, but can he assure us that we will be able to have an increase in borrowing powers as a result of the fiscal autonomy that will be coming to Wales?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

24: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Lending for capital expenditure
(1) In section 122A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (lending for capital expenditure), in subsections (1) and (3), for “£500 million” substitute “£2 billion”.(2) In section 161(2) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (commencement), after “120(3) and (7)” insert —“section 122A(1) and (3),”.”

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, to me this is one of the key clauses in the whole Bill. I have made no secret of my lack of enthusiasm for the way the Bill has been written, but we are now living in very difficult financial times. The IFS has claimed that there will be a 3.2% cut, in real terms, in the Welsh budget over the next three years. We have little confidence that the UK Government are going to make up the losses that Wales will face as a result of Brexit. The IFS has said that if they do not make up the losses, that will lead to a doubling of those cuts if EU aid is not replaced after Brexit. I am aware that there has been a promise until 2020, but nothing beyond that.

The devolution of tax powers through the Wales Act 2014 will also enable the Welsh Government to borrow in order to invest in capital infrastructure. That will benefit the economy and communities across Wales. The current level of capital borrowing permitted to the Welsh Government is £500 million. That is based on the devolution of two fairly minor taxes: stamp duty land tax and landfill tax. In the Command Paper published alongside the Wales Bill in March 2014, the UK Government committed to reviewing the level of capital borrowing available to Wales if income tax is partially devolved. This Wales Bill will result in the transfer of an additional £2 billion in tax revenue to the Welsh Government, and so will significantly increase the size of the independent revenue stream available to the Welsh Government. In line with the commitment given in 2014, the Bill provides an opportunity to give Welsh Ministers a more meaningful degree of borrowing power to reflect the significant increase in devolved tax revenues under their control.

The Silk commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was a member, recommended that the Welsh Government’s capital borrowing limit should be at least proportionate to the limit agreed for Scotland, taking into consideration the relative lack of exposure to PFI in Wales. With comparable devolved tax powers, the UK Government agreed a capital borrowing limit of £2.2 billion in the Scotland Act 2012. In line with the recommendation from the Silk commission, a capital borrowing limit of £2 billion would therefore be proportionate to that agreed for the Scottish Government, after taking into account the Welsh Government’s lower exposure to PFI. The UK Government’s position that a limit of £500 million is appropriate, as set out in the Government of Wales Act, is contradictory to the approach taken for the Scottish Government in the Scotland Act. At a time when there are significant economic uncertainties, the ability to bring forward additional capital investment would provide a much needed economic stimulus to Wales. With a capital borrowing limit of £2 billion, the Welsh Government would have the fiscal tools available to support the level of investment needed in Wales.

The Welsh Government and Assembly are anxious to grow up, but it is as if the UK Government still want to treat them like children, telling them how much money they can spend and that they are allowed to borrow only if they tell “daddy” what they are going to spend the money on. An increase in the Welsh Government’s borrowing capacity is absolutely critical, and I for one would find it very difficult to support the Bill without that increase. We understand that this will form part of the discussions on the financial framework, but we strongly recommend that both the Welsh Government and the UK Government come to an agreement on this critical area. I ask the Minister to give a commitment that there will be a revision of the amount that is currently in the Government of Wales Act.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 24 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, which seeks to raise the limit on capital expenditure lending from £500 million to £2 billion. We touched on this issue in our debate on the previous group of amendments.

In the economic climate we find ourselves today, with further uncertainties ahead of us, it is more necessary than ever to have available to the Welsh Government a facility to boost jobs and stimulate growth by way of capital investment—in particular, in capital expenditure on infrastructure projects. Many expect the Chancellor to reflect that sentiment in his Autumn Statement later this month. The Bill imposes on capital borrowing the disappointing limit of only £500 million, which is not enough even to pay for the Welsh Government’s M4 relief road scheme—unless they were to adopt a more sensible route than that currently being advocated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in the debate on Amendment 24, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, for moving it.

The amendment seeks to quadruple the Welsh Government’s capital borrowing limit set in the Wales Act 2014 from £500 million to £2 billion. As the noble Baroness is of course aware, borrowing falls within the scope of the funding discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government that are proceeding alongside the Bill. As we know, the Bill cannot proceed without the legislative consent Motion, which is dependent on those discussions being successful.

I refer noble Lords to the communiqué published following the Joint Exchequer Committee meeting in September. The two Governments discussed the rationale for the existing capital borrowing arrangements and agreed to consider changing them. Therefore, I can give the noble Baroness the undertaking that she seeks, and I think it is consistent with what I said in the previous debate. It is unthinkable that the matter would not be raised. However, I think she will understand that I cannot give a specific figure. Indeed, the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, perhaps indicate that we do not want to constrain the figure in case the discussions lead to it going higher than that. I have given noble Lords an undertaking, which I will repeat: ahead of Report I will give a summary of where we are on the fiscal discussions, which are going well—including, as I understand it, in this area.

As noble Lords have indicated, there are two key considerations in relation to the borrowing limit. The first is ensuring that borrowing is affordable for the Welsh Government. Of course, the transfer of the taxation powers that we have just been looking at will certainly help in that regard, as will the smaller taxes that have already been transferred. The second is ensuring that borrowing is appropriate within the funding arrangements for the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sure that those two points are being borne in mind during the discussions—which, as I said, seem to be going well.

In relation to Welsh Government affordability, as I have indicated, we need to ensure that the Welsh Government have sufficient independent revenues to manage their borrowing costs. As I said, the new taxation powers that are being carried forward by the Bill will help in that regard. In relation to the wider United Kingdom funding arrangements, it is important to recognise that, within any given fiscal position, additional Welsh Government borrowing will mean less spending in the rest of the UK, including in relation to some of the issues funded for Wales from United Kingdom taxation.

Those are the issues being looked at, and I can give two undertakings: first, we will not get the legislation without the LCM; and, secondly, I repeat the undertaking that I gave at Second Reading—I appreciate that not all noble Lords were here for that—to give a summary of where we are so that noble Lords will be aware of it ahead of Report.

I understand the points that are being made and I think all noble Lords who have spoken—the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Berkeley—recognise the need for these powers in order that the Welsh Government can borrow. Of course, it is then for the Welsh Government to decide how they borrow and how they spend the money—that is within their devolved competence.

Given the undertakings I have given, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I thank the noble Lord for those undertakings. I was particularly pleased to hear that the amount could even go above £2 billion. We will certainly underline and take note of that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

38: Clause 3, page 2, line 28, after “7A)” insert “and is not ancillary to another provision (whether in this Act or another enactment) that does not relate to a reserved matter”

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, many amendments have been put together in this group, but I will focus in the first place on the so-called purpose test. Here we come to the crux of the constitutional issues with the Bill, and an area which has been criticised by some of the top constitutional experts of this country. I will raise some general questions about how the so-called purpose test works, in order to determine the scope of the Assembly’s legislative competence, because if we do not get clarity on this, the chances of ending up in the Supreme Court are extremely high.

The Bill appears to operate in a binary way. If a provision in an Assembly Bill is exclusively concerned with non-reserved matters, such as agriculture or health, it is of course within the Assembly’s legislative competence. If, conversely, a provision in an Assembly Bill “relates to” a reserved matter, the Bill is outside the Assembly’s legislative competence. Whether a provision relates to a reserved matter is, as the Bill has it, to be,

“determined by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances”.

This is the purpose test that I would like to explore.

Of course, in the real world, matters can never be so black and white. Any Assembly Bill seeking to address the complications of modern life is unlikely to be able to do so by making provisions exclusively about non-reserved matters. It may be necessary, for entirely sensible reasons, to touch on reserved matters as well as non-reserved matters.

The question that I am exploring is how far the Assembly can do that before stepping outside the scope of its competence. Does the fact that a specific provision in an Assembly Bill deals in some way with a reserved matter automatically take the Bill outside the Assembly’s legislative competence? If so, that could present some major practical problems for the Assembly. The Minister will know that in the agricultural case, under the current devolution settlement the essence of the matter was that what the Assembly had done could be characterised either as relating to the conferred matter of agriculture or, as the Government contended, to some other matters entirely that were effectively reserved. The Supreme Court held that under the present settlement, provided that the provision fairly and realistically relates to a conferred matter, it makes no difference that it could also be described as relating to a matter on which the 2006 Act is silent—it would still be within competence. On that basis, a certain degree of flexibility is inherent in the current settlement.

Additional flexibility is also available under the present settlement as, where a provision falls within one of the exceptions to the Assembly’s competence, it can still be included in an Assembly Bill where it is incidental to or consequential on another provision within the Assembly's competence. What flexibility is implicit in the settlement envisaged by the Bill before the House? I invite the Minister to address that question. In so doing, I simply make the point that, given the inordinate length of the list of reserved matters that the Assembly will face, this is far from being a theoretical matter. The Constitution Committee’s valuable report on the Bill points out that,

“this test may have the effect of reducing the scope of the Welsh Assembly’s legislative competence, and perhaps lead to further referrals to the Supreme Court. We would welcome”—

again, this is what the Constitution Committee of this House said—

“an explanation from the Government as to whether this was the intent of the legislation and, if not, what steps they intend to take to ensure that the competence of the Welsh Assembly is not inadvertently reduced”.

I ask the Minister to address that issue. We need to know whether the Assembly could be hopelessly constrained from taking action on important social concerns by being unable in its legislation to touch on reserved matters in the course of addressing issues that otherwise would clearly be within devolved competence.

There are a whole load of other amendments in this group, and I would like to deal also with the issue of “ancillary”. Section 108 of the current Government of Wales Act enables the National Assembly for Wales to pass legislative provisions that are ancillary to devolved matters—or, to use the exact terminology, provisions that are,

“incidental to, or consequential on”,

devolved matters, or which,

“provides for the enforcement”,

of such matters to make them effective. But no such express provision is made in the equivalent clause of the Bill, which, coupled with the overlapping issue of the necessity test imposed on modifying the law on reserved matters, is a cause of deep concern. The issue of enforcement is more allowable in the current system than in the one that the Minister envisages with the Bill.

When this issue was raised in the other place, a somewhat confusing response was given. On the one hand, it was said that making such a provision would,

“drive a coach and horses through the key principle underpinning the new model, which is a clear boundary between what is devolved and what is reserved”.—[Official Report, Commons, Wales Bill Committee, 11/7/16; col. 87.]

On the other hand, it was claimed that the ability to make ancillary provision is “simply not needed” as it was already provided for. I find that response as confusing as the Bill itself.

Those promoting the Bill could also have said that it is in this respect merely following the precedent of the Scotland Act 1998, which has a similar provision. But blindly following those provisions in these very different circumstances is unwise. The approach taken in the Bill is uncertain and obscure. It is by no means clear that the National Assembly can make ancillary provision, as no express provision is made in the Bill; it is merely implied.

Why can the Minister not deal with this clearly by making express provision, as is done in the Northern Ireland Act 1998? If, as the Government claim, it is clear that the manner in which the purpose test operates means that ancillary provision is not reserved, why is there a need to state in Schedule 7A that it is not reserved where it,

“is ancillary to a provision of any Act of the Assembly or Assembly Measure”?

Such a provision should be unnecessary if ancillary provisions are not reserved.

The ability to make ancillary provision is vital for Welsh law because of the narrowness of the devolution settlement. The mechanisms necessary to enforce the law, such as police and the courts, are all devolved in Scotland, which they are not in Wales. Put simply, the obscure way in which this is dealt with in the Scotland Act and the attached necessity test is of little practical importance, while in the Government of Wales Act it is crucial to enable the National Assembly to legislate freely. Again, lessons can be learned here from Northern Ireland, where such matters as policing were not initially devolved. It is no doubt for this reason that clear provision is made to ensure that ancillary provision is within competence.

This is not a minor, technical matter worthy of debate only by lawyers and academics. This goes to the heart of whether the Welsh devolution settlement is workable. As has been alluded to by the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee in their excellent reports, the particular reserved powers model adopted by the Government risks further reducing the legislative competence of the Assembly, and the failure to make express provision for ancillary matters and the constraint of the necessity test is in the same vein.

Amendment 75 provides for an exception for ancillary provision on certain justice matters for the purpose of enforcing legislation on a subject matter that is not reserved, so that the Welsh Government can give effect to such legislation. Unless this is allowed, it may be difficult for the Assembly to enforce provisions in Assembly Acts.

Finally, I touch on Amendment 81, which restates the existing powers of the National Assembly to modify Minister of the Crown functions within devolved areas where doing so,

“is incidental to, or consequential on”—

another provision in an Assembly Act. I will give one example of how absurd the law could become if something is not done.

Wales was one of the first places to ban smoking in public places. Last year, the Welsh Government hoped to introduce a law under the Public Health (Wales) Bill to ban the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace in Wales. They planned to impose duties on workplace managers in Wales to police the new ruling. The problem is that the UK Government in London would be required to give their consent in workplaces under their authority, such as the DVLA and the Crown Prosecution Service. If the Government refused to grant consent, we could have legions of Welsh people traipsing over to the DVLA to smoke their e-cigarettes.

Can the Minister give us clarity on the situation and how we can resolve what I believe is a serious matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in introducing his Amendments 77 and 78, did not expand very much on what they mean. I support the Government on the necessary test for the law on reserved matters, and I think it is essential that it be confined in that way.

I would be extremely concerned if there were an attempt to have a different criminal law applying in Wales, save in matters concerned with the enforcement of regulations or Acts of the Welsh Parliament. However, any modifications to the criminal law that dealt with, for example, the meaning of intention, recklessness, dishonesty, and so on or “secondary criminal liability” would cause great conflict. I have to tell your Lordships that I was involved in the definition of “recklessness” in the House of Lords Judicial Committee 25 years ago. My argument was dismissed but 25 years later their Lordships overruled the previous decision. It was similar with secondary criminal liability. My argument about that many years ago was dismissed but in very recent times has been accepted. These are difficult concepts and they should not be interfered with in any way.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. There is a lot to digest.

It gives me a degree of comfort to understand that the amendment will fail the relate test if it has reserved matters as its purpose—that was clearly underlined by the Minister. The shifting of the burden of proof is also useful. I find that examples tell the story more readily than heavy legalese. However, it would have been useful to have heard examples of where it would have failed. We may be able to look at that in future. We need to be clear about where the lines are.

It was useful to understand that there will not be a need for consent by a UK Government Minister in relation to reserved bodies if it relates to general duties. I am again comforted by that.

As I say, there is a lot to digest and we will need time to look in detail at the Minister’s answer to see whether it meets some of our concerns. At this point I reserve judgment on whether he has answered all of my concerns and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 56 seeks to remove the reservation that deals with the supply of heat and cooling. It is important to be clear that the reservation is concerned with policy on heat supply, which is analogous to the supply of every other type of energy. Heat is strategically significant and represents almost half of our energy use and around a third of carbon emissions. The reservation of heat supply is not about fuel poverty, energy efficiency or building regulations; it is about supplying heat through policies such as the renewable heat incentive, the heat networks investment project, the combined heat and power quality assurance scheme, and innovation support through initiatives such as the smart systems and heat programme.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I think the noble Lord has decoupled that amendment. We will deal with heating and cooling at a different time.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I apologise. I am grateful for the intervention. In that case, I have dealt with our amendments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her timely intervention. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, it is simply demeaning for Wales that public order and policing should not be devolved. Why should Wales, which has a mature Assembly and is a nation anxious to take more responsibility for its own affairs, not be allowed the same level of responsibility as Northern Ireland and Scotland? I have not heard a good reason. I do not believe that there is any greater necessity to have a single system embracing England and Wales than there is for other parts of the United Kingdom.

If the Government would be a little bolder and allow devolution of responsibility in such matters as drugs and alcohol, everybody might benefit because Wales would have the opportunity to experiment with policy. In the field of drugs and alcohol, for example, we know very well that the existing orthodoxies, practices and policy are not working particularly well. Often they are working downright badly. We have huge problems with regard to drugs and alcohol. Surely it would be better to allow Wales to pioneer and develop policies of its own. Wales would obviously have to take responsibility and a degree of risk, but it is surely better that it should be able to take responsibility and to experiment than that we should simply carry on in Wales with orthodoxies that have failed in the United Kingdom as a whole. No harm has been done by Wales having a degree of independence in education policy—in schooling, for example—so surely that is the right principle.

There will, of course, be questions of resources if more responsibilities, particularly the major responsibility for public order and policing, are to be devolved. In consideration of that we have again to go back to the question of the devolution of income tax-varying powers. We debated that issue earlier this afternoon. I shall very gently make a point to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who disputed whether a manifesto commitment was being broken by the Government. If he looks at the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons on 14 June, at col. 1653 he will see his Conservative colleagues Mr David Jones, the former Secretary of State, and Mr Chris Davies, the Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnorshire, bemoaning the fact that the Government have, in fact, broken a manifesto commitment in that regard. I do not want to labour the point, but it ought to be corrected for the record. Certainly we have to consider, in conjunction with the question of what reservations are appropriate and what reservations the Government may decide after all to abandon, the associated question of resources—because it is no good willing the end without enabling the Government of Wales to have the means.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I know it is very late, but this a critical group of amendments. This is the first time we have discussed the reservations, and it worth pausing a moment to think about them and the way the Government have approached this issue.

There are a number of reasons why I think the Government’s approach to how they have included certain reservations is lacking. I shall refer to some key quotations. The first comes from a letter from the First Minister to the then Secretary of State for Wales after the Secretary of State announced in November 2014 a programme of work designed to produce a new devolution settlement for Wales. The First Minister expressed his support and said that,

“previously, under administrations of both political colours, the development of a clear and robust settlement has … been hindered by a nit-picking reluctance on the part of particular Whitehall Departments to acknowledge the case for further transfers of responsibilities. It will be important that that reluctance should not re-emerge”.

However, I am afraid we have seen it again.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Griffiths for introducing this very important amendment. As he outlined, fixed-odds betting terminals are devices normally found across the country in betting shops that allow players to bet on the outcome of various games and events with fixed odds. I must admit that I am not much of an expert in this field. In fact, the nearest I have come to some serious betting is the odd game of bingo and the 2p slot machines on Barry Island. While we have to recognise that betting probably goes back to the age of the ark, we should be aware that the scale—the ability to lose serious money very quickly—has changed exponentially in recent years.

I make it quite clear that we are under no circumstances here advocating the wholesale devolution of gambling regulation to Wales. With the advent of internet gambling, it is extremely difficult to regulate gambling even at the UK level, let alone at the Welsh level. However, a particular aspect of gambling is causing social havoc in families and leading to ill health. Fixed-odds betting terminals allow players to stake up to £100 every 20 seconds on touch-screen machines—a significantly higher stake than the £2 maximum bet on a fruit machine. Many, often vulnerable, people are attracted by the prospect of high payouts of up to £500. Evidence suggests that these machines are highly addictive, causing real and lasting damage to gamblers. They have become a huge problem in communities that are often struggling to cope with underinvestment and high unemployment, exacerbating problem gambling more than any other form of betting. There are more than 1,500 fixed-odds betting terminals in Wales today, and more than £1.6 billion is staked annually. That is £1.6 billion in Wales alone.

I am ashamed to say that I believe that deregulating this industry was one of the worst things that Labour did while in government. Betting is creating vast social problems and health problems in our communities, but it is not the UK Government who are having to wipe up the mess; it is the Welsh Government. This amendment would confer legislative competence over fixed-odds betting terminals on the Welsh Assembly—a matter which is already devolved to Scotland. Therefore, once again, I ask the Minister: if it is good enough for Scotland, why is it not good enough for Wales? Devolving the regulations would allow the Welsh Government to introduce appropriate restrictions on content and operation and would shape responsible gambling initiatives.

In 2014, the Assembly adopted a Back-Bench Motion drawing attention to the social problems arising from the growth of gambling in Wales. It is important to note that this was supported by all four political parties then represented in the Assembly. By ensuring that betting shops remain the safest place to gamble and that people enjoy their leisure experience without betting more than they can afford to lose, the Welsh Government could take action to alleviate the negative consequences of gambling addiction, such as insurmountable debt and poor health, which at present have a detrimental knock-on effect on the Welsh budget. I ask the Minister to consider very seriously this extremely grave problem in some of our most deprived communities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

53: Schedule 1, page 56, line 16, at end insert—
“Section C5AC5A Sea fishing69A_ Regulation of sea fishing outside the Welsh zone (except in relation to Welsh fishing boats).Interpretation“Welsh fishing boat” means a fishing vessel which is registered in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and whose entry in the register specifies a port in Wales as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging.”

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, this amendment, which concerns sea fishing, is a little bit complicated, so I hope that noble Lords will bear with me.

The Welsh Government already have executive competence for fisheries functions in the Welsh zone. In other words, it is now up to Welsh Ministers to determine what happens in relation to fishing anywhere within the 12-mile zone of Wales. This power is now extended to allow Welsh Government Ministers to have executive powers over Welsh fishing boats, whether they are in Welsh waters or UK waters. Take a Welsh fishing boat that is fishing off the Norfolk coast, which is within British fishery limits and would currently be subject to the licensing rules set out by UK Ministers. In future, when this power is transferred, it will be up to Welsh Ministers, by their rules, to license those Welsh fishing boats, whether they are in Welsh waters or in UK waters—obviously excluding Scottish waters.

That is all very nice and dandy for Welsh Government Ministers. However, there will be no oversight of Welsh Ministers because the Assembly—not the Government but the Assembly Members, like me—would not have any say on or sight of what is happening because the Assembly lacks the legislative competence to regulate fishing activities beyond the area of the Welsh zone. These are currently UK Minister powers, and so we come back to the issue of the alignment between legislative and executive functions.

This will become increasingly more important with Brexit on the horizon, because fishing is, of course, an area of devolved competence. The executive powers that are being transferred are the powers to require Welsh fishing boats to have a licence before they can fish outside the Welsh zone. For example, the licence could specify that you cannot fish for certain types of fish or that you must use approved fishing methods. At the moment, these fall under the EU common fisheries policy. Scotland currently has the legislative competence in relation to both the Scottish zone and Scottish fishing boats outside that area. The proposed amendment seeks simply to bring the Welsh Assembly’s legislative competence in line with the Scottish legislative competence and help align the Assembly’s legislative competence with Welsh Ministers’ executive fisheries functions. I hope that that is clear. I beg to move.

[Lord Elis-Thomas (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support this amendment from my noble friend Lady Morgan. It is in line with a more general issue that I raised earlier about the relationship between the executive competence of Welsh Ministers and the parallel competence, where it currently applies, of UK Ministers, and the competence of the Assembly itself and its ability to legislate and scrutinise. This is a fundamental issue and flaw in the Bill that we are now discussing. It is particularly reprehensible in the case of fishing.

I had the proud duty of trying to represent the northern part of Cardigan Bay. This will be well known to the Minister because he was based in the middle of Cardigan Bay for a very long time and, as far as I know, may still have a bolthole somewhere in the region—I will not pursue that in this debate. He also had a role further south-west in Milford Haven and so will know well the nature of the Welsh fishing industry and how it has been denuded over the years as a result of the reduction in the number of vessels and, more recently, the activity undertaken by the Welsh fisheries association with strong support from the Welsh Government in restoring and developing inshore fishing in order to ensure that we have product to promote Welsh fisheries as part of the Welsh food and drink initiative, which is currently the flagship policy of the Welsh Government. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take a further look at this.

It is essential, in my view, that we should be able to have direct oversight of our natural resources and not be in a situation where the oversight of the natural resources of Wales—in this case, the increasingly important marine resources—is located elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am going on to tackle the point made by the noble Lord. The Assembly has no legislative competence as things stand although Welsh Ministers can exercise executive functions in that part of the Welsh zone beyond 12 nautical miles in so far as these have been conferred by United Kingdom enactments.

I take the points that have been made in relation to fishing, but as drafted we would need to look at the amendment. It proposes something fairly fundamental to the extent that it would vary the geographic extent of the Assembly’s competence. I would want to go away and have a look at that to see how it could be refined, if that is possible. This is not something that was considered by Silk or by the St David’s Day agreement and, as drafted, the amendment goes well beyond the issue of fishing licences.

My noble friend Lord Deben referred to some of the ramifications in relation to fishing policy as it exists at the moment through Europe and as it will exist in the future outside of Europe, but that is obviously still something to be refined. I want to reflect on that as well.

My noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked about the licensing of fishing vessels and the position in his former constituency of Pembroke—Preseli Pembrokeshire as it now is. I can well remember as an elected representative in the Assembly for that area going at about four o’clock in the morning to the fish market at Milford Haven to speak to electors. All the electors there were Spanish electors, although they did have vehicles that were licensed in Wales as part of the United Kingdom. I think that that remains the position at the moment, but how it will pan out post-Brexit I do not know.

If I may I will take the amendment away and look at it, but based on the fact that there are far more ramifications to this than just fishing, and even in relation to fishing there are of course considerable ramifications—beyond 12 miles it is an economic zone for the state of the United Kingdom and we would exercise powers in relation to that for the whole country. On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, I thank him for his always gentle and complimentary approach which has me doing things I would probably not normally agree to; I recognise the dangers. I hope that we have looked at things in relation to this legislation on a pragmatic basis because that is the way to approach it. Any general rule is going to have to give way to exceptions because as we can see there are always difficulties in these things. Sometimes they look much more straightforward than they are. My door is always open and we have set up meetings with many noble Lords. I am happy to do that, but as I say our approach to the legislation is a good British pragmatic one. I will look without prejudice at what I think is a much more difficult area than perhaps it looks on the face of it. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I thank the Minister. His reply reminded me of the time when I was an MEP and I went to meet the head of the sea fishermen’s association of Wales, Mr Gonzalez. Times have changed; we will see what happens.

I am delighted that the Minister is happy to look at this again. We would be happy to redraft the amendment. I do not quite understand why, if Welsh Government Ministers have this competence, the Welsh Assembly cannot be allowed it. Perhaps I need to go away and think about it. We come back to the issue of aligning legislative and Executive competence. If the noble Lord could look at that, I will of course withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, in supporting the persuasive case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I want to press the Minister on the question of job searches, which are automatically part of the careers service—careers being devolved, as has been mentioned. Has the Bill been drafted with a view to DWP questions, which of course are reserved? Jobcentres, in managing benefits, are also concerned with getting people into work and therefore job searching and providing skills and so on. Are the Government looking at this matter from a DWP and therefore a reserved perspective, but not taking account of the fact that careers are devolved and job searches are by definition part of a supportive, active, flexible careers service?

Perhaps the Minister could clarify this when he responds. If the DWP dimension is the reason that this is not being devolved in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has argued should be the case, will he look at it again to see whether it is possible to reconfigure this part of the Bill?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I will follow up on my noble friend Lord Howarth’s point on the principles that guided the determination of what should be reserved. To be fair to the Minister, we asked this question before but it was past 10.30 pm so I will give him another opportunity to state on what basis those principles were set—why have they been determined in this way? I underline the point made by many other noble Lords: we know the Minister to be a friend of Wales and that he is doing his very best for Wales. However, it would be interesting to understand why and on what grounds the other departments are making their case on the basis of reserving quite so many powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, we have heard some very passionate speeches and we are all very aware of how emotional the issue of water can become in Wales. The Minister is aware of how sensitive this issue is, especially following the travesty of the development at Tryweryn, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned. In fact, the Secretary of State, who is present —we welcome him to this Chamber—was clear in his public announcement yesterday that a second Tryweryn could never happen. The events at Tryweryn occurred in 1965, before I was born, but the fact that it has left an impression even on my generation says something about the powerful message that was sent at that time. I do not want to be churlish but I was fairly confident about this issue, having sought assurances from Welsh Government officials, who suggested that current planning laws already devolved to Wales could probably have stopped that scandal being repeated. I hope the Minister will confirm whether that is the case. As I say, I do not want to be churlish, so I cautiously welcome the announcement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to water. However, I will reserve my judgment until we have seen the detail. On the face of it, the announcement should be a positive move but, as always, the devil is in the detail. Until we have had a chance to scrutinise that proposal, I intend to press ahead with our amendments.

The Bill amends Section 114 of the 2006 Act by limiting the grounds on which the Secretary of State can intervene to prevent the Presiding Officer submitting an Assembly Bill for Royal Assent. That section currently allows an intervention, so I look forward to the government amendment to remove it. The Minister should be aware that anything other than a complete deletion of this section will be looked on unfavourably.

Notwithstanding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I stand by Amendment 54, which would require the full devolution of water and sewerage to be aligned with the geographical boundary with England, as set out in the Silk report and the St David’s Day Command Paper. The work of the joint Governments’ water and sewerage devolution programme board, which was established following the St David’s Day paper to consider the alignment competence, found that changes can be achieved with minimal impact on consumers of water and sewerage services. I was delighted to see that in the letter to Peers that the Minister sent last week, he suggested that he was looking at this issue. Therefore, we hope that he will look favourably on this amendment.

The third amendment relates to the regulator. Ofwat, the regulator for water and sewerage providers in England and Wales, should be fully accountable to the National Assembly for Wales in respect of the functions it exercises in relation to Wales to better reflect the current devolution settlement on water matters. The amendment would make it a requirement for Ofwat to produce a report to Welsh Ministers and for that report to be laid before the National Assembly in respect of the functions it exercises in relation to Wales. The amendment would require the nomination of a board member as a joint appointment between the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to reflect a new arrangement which the Welsh Government consider necessary consequent to full legislative competence for water and sewerage.

Amendment 104 is proposed to amend Section 27 of the Water Industry Act to require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of Welsh Ministers before issuing general directions to Ofwat in respect of matters where functions are exercised by water and sewerage undertakers in Wales, or where licensed activities are carried out using the system of a water or sewerage undertaker wholly or mainly in Wales.

These changes are necessary so that Ofwat is fully accountable to the National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Ministers for those functions to be exercisable in relation to Wales. It is therefore important that we apply appropriate Assembly procedures to regulations which make provision within the Assembly’s competence. Scotland has great scope on environmental powers, including the regulation of water. It is only right that Wales is awarded equal authority in this respect.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these amendments, which relate to water. I particularly welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who moved his amendment with sensitivity and fairness on an issue which I know is very close to his heart. The Government are determined that never again should there be a Tryweryn. That is at the back of all our thinking on this issue.

I welcome the contributions from around the Committee. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral spoke with passion of his time in north Wales, and the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, talked of his home county of Meirionnydd. I also welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I could not agree more with the sentiments that they expressed. I also thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell—with his background and experience as chairman of the National Rivers Authority—for bringing his authority to this issue: aligning the border is not necessarily straightforward.

Water is of symbolic importance as well as practical significance to Wales. It evokes more passion and debate than probably any other issue relating to Welsh devolution. It is not just about Tryweryn; as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded us, it is about the Dulas Valley as well, and there have been other issues. I thank noble Lords for contributing to the debate from the viewpoint of their own experiences. The strength of feeling has been amply demonstrated in their speeches.

In announcing the Government’s intention to devolve pay, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales signalled that the Government were exploring other aspects of the settlement to ensure that it is as clear and fair as possible. Yesterday, my right honourable friend Alun Cairns announced the Government’s intention to remove the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene on water and to replace them with a statutory protocol on water between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government. Work will be done on that, and we hope to have the detail ready for Report.

That is a highly significant announcement. Water has been a challenging issue, as anyone familiar with recent Welsh history will know. The replacement of the intervention powers with a formal protocol marks a step change in the history of Welsh devolution—one that resolves past differences and provides clarity for the future. The move also removes any last impediment that there may be—at least in terms of this Bill; I hope the noble Baroness will be able to clarify this—to the Assembly giving its approval to the Wales Bill, subject of course to agreement on the fiscal arrangements.

The existing intervention powers were put in place in the Government of Wales Act 2006, when Peter Hain—now the noble Lord, Lord Hain—was Secretary of State. Since then, there has been a great deal of development in relation to devolution. This Bill marks a move to a new, durable and lasting devolution settlement, underpinned by a recognition of the maturity of the Assembly and the Welsh Government. In keeping with this, it is time to replace the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene on the Assembly and Welsh Ministers in relation to water with a statutory protocol between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government which defines how the two Governments will work together on water-related issues—in particular, cross-border issues.

I confirm that the Government intend to bring forward amendments on Report to put in place the requirement for a formal agreement and to remove the intervention powers. In doing so, it will be important to respect the interests of water users in both Wales and England. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell exemplified, this is not necessarily straightforward in every respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I am pleased that there will be movement on the intervention powers of the Secretary of State. That is a very positive move. I am also very pleased the Minister has clarified the fact that we could have stopped what happened at Tryweryn with the current powers—that has come across clearly. But he did not say, in relation to Ofwat, whether he is minded to move on that issue. The impression I got was that he was not, but perhaps he will clarify that.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am happy to clarify that point. I believe that the existing powers in relation to the Welsh Government and Welsh Ministers are sufficient, but I am very happy to look at that issue and cover it in the protocol, which could extend to that if it is something that we should be doing. I will happily discuss that with the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

55A: Schedule 1, page 60, line 4, at end insert —
“ExceptionConsent for—(a) the construction, extension or operation of devolved generating stations, and(b) the installation of devolved associated lines, or keeping such lines installed.Interpretation“Devolved generating station” means an electricity generating station that is or (when constructed or extended) is expected to be—(a) in Wales and—(i) generates or is to generate electricity from wind, or(ii) has or is to have a maximum capacity of 350 megawatts or less; or(b) in Welsh waters and has or is to have a maximum capacity of 350 megawatts or less.“Welsh waters” means so much of the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Wales, and the Welsh zone.“Devolved associated line” means an overhead electric line that—(a) is associated with a devolved generating station, and(b) has or is (when installed) to have a nominal voltage no greater than 132 kilovolts.”

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, this Bill proposes that the Assembly will gain competence over all renewable energy generating projects of up to 350 megawatts in Wales and in Welsh territorial waters. Amendment 55A suggests that the UK Government have gone too far in their intention to reserve their power to legislate over electricity, including the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity. Although of course we recognise that it is important to have a single market in energy, ideally not just in the UK but across the EU as a whole, we contend that under the system proposed by the UK Government opportunities for the development of energy production in Wales will be stifled.

Here, I should probably declare an interest. It is not a current interest but an interest that I had in the past while I was working for an energy company in Wales. Part of my remit was to help develop a significant wind farm in mid-Wales. Let me tell you that the legislative process was chaos. The Welsh Government had more or less invited wind farm companies to develop wind farms in specific areas in Wales, but the decision as to whether permission could be given to develop a large wind farm was the responsibility not of the Welsh Government but of the UK Government.

On top of that, the wind farm needed to be connected to the grid. A 132 kV line—that is, a small electricity line on a pole—from the wind farm to the main national grid needed to be approved, not by the national Government but by the local authority. This could be called in by the National Assembly. These little electricity lines then needed to be connected to a large electricity substation—the places where you see the twirly bits in areas where the electricity goes in. That would convert the voltage from 132 kV to 400 kV, which is for the national grid. The responsibility to allow the building of the substation lay with local government, which again could be called in by the Welsh Government. Responsibility for the national grid and the decision as to whether to build the large power lines on pylons rested with the UK Government.

The whole system was chaos. It was no wonder that, in the end, the company threw up its arms in horror and walked away from the project, having already invested a not insignificant amount of money. Unless the associated consents for devolved electricity generation rest in Wales, the chaos is likely to continue.

I will touch briefly now on the limitation of the level at which Welsh Government approval in relation to electricity is set. The Bill proposes that the Assembly will gain competence over all renewable energy generating projects of up to 350 megawatts in Wales and in Welsh territorial waters. Our concern is that this figure is arbitrary. The Silk commission attempted to provide justification for this limit, but the situation in Wales has moved on considerably since those days. Since the Silk commission looked at the issue, we have seen ambitious projects such as the tidal lagoons progress and proposals for huge tidal lagoons introduced. I know that we are still waiting for the green light—and I will be extremely interested to hear what the strike price will be eventually on this project—but, whether you are a supporter or not, these plans are very far advanced.

In this amendment we suggest that the limit should be increased to 2,000 megawatts. I accept that that is just as arbitrary a figure. Therefore, will the Minister confirm why a level of 350 megawatts was suggested and why we cannot increase it? What is the rationale behind that? If we do not change it now, would there be any scope for us to change it in the future? What would the process for that be? I beg to move.

[Lord Elis-Thomas]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for moving this amendment. Her description of what happened with the history of substantial onshore wind projects in Wales was absolutely correct. For much of that period I had responsibility as chair of the environment committee of the National Assembly, which produced a substantial report on energy and planning. My difficulty is the difficulty to which she alluded; yet again we are placing a cap on the potential development of natural resources in Wales that does not make sense in terms of energy policy or indeed in terms of the potential for development of natural resources for the future.

There is a separation of generation capacity at different levels. There is the grid, as we have already heard, for the over 400 kilovolt—but there is also the separation of powers in relation to the internal grids provided by the electricity distribution companies. This affects potential smaller generation projects with individuals and small communities whether of hydro power, wind power, turbines, solar power or any other developing form of renewable energy. It means that the potential for development is being stifled because no one is taking a clear view of how these projects could be developed.

Unfortunately for the whole project, the Welsh Government intervention seeking to identify areas for development—mainly on land in public ownership—was not helpful. So for 10 years at least we lost potential capacity for energy generation and also capacity for having a proper grid connection throughout Wales. That is something that we shall have to revisit. I look enviously to Scotland, which has clear guidelines and clear demarcation in terms of the devolution of energy.

I have a particular interest in other forms of low-carbon energy, notably the potential development of small modular nuclear power that could replace the decommissioned nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd in my own part of the world. Currently nuclear power is with the UK Government in totality. But the actual capacity in terms of generation of a single modular power station is probably less than 350 megawatts. Obviously one would look for more than one unit at such a development where you have, as at Trawsfynydd, a full grid connection, land and water availability for coolant and of course a very skilled labour force that has worked in the energy industry. So the Minster needs to look again at the way in which these aspects of the Bill have been set out. In areas of natural resource, it is essential that we look to future capacity and not settle for arbitrary figures on present capacity.

I shall not ask whether the Minister is interested in introducing a protocol for energy policy, but if a protocol for natural resource in relation to water makes sense, it makes even more sense in relation to energy. I have not even mentioned the energy arriving increasingly now in Wales and as part of the Welsh grid from Ireland, where I am assured that the future development of renewable energy both onshore and offshore is likely to continue. That capacity can join the mainland European grid effectively only through Wales. All these aspects need to be considered. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, me and others some optimism as to the potential for future development of this natural resource.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I say two things to that. First, I am certainly not going to get into a Dutch auction as to what should come within on that basis. Of course I understand the point he makes, but my second point takes me back to one I have already made: we need a ready and willing dialogue between the Welsh Government and the National Assembly, as I think is happening, and between BEIS and Parliament. There is no reason to suppose that there is a malign intent regarding these projects. I know the noble Lord is not suggesting that.

Government Amendment 119G is a minor and technical change to Schedule 5. Under Clause 37, Welsh Ministers will have the ability to consent to electricity generating stations of up to 350 megawatts in waters adjacent to Wales. The vehicle for doing so will be Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, and Schedule 5 to the Bill gives Welsh Ministers the ability, by regulation, to amend the Section 36 application processes to suit their purposes. The Bill currently also extends that regulation-making power to Section 37 of the Electricity Act, which relates to the consenting of overhead power lines. However, as Section 37 consenting powers are not being devolved in the Bill, the power is ineffective and it makes sense to remove it.

Government Amendment 121 amends Clause 55. Further to the one-stop-shop philosophy for energy consenting advocated by the Silk commission, Clause 41 provides the Secretary of State with the ability to consent associated developments along with the principal consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects in the field of electricity generation and transmission. This will deliver significant streamlining improvements to a system which, at present, can require developers to assemble consents from a plethora of different authorities. It is wholly consistent with the Government’s policy of encouraging infrastructure development for these changes to be introduced as soon as it is practical. The amendment will achieve that by commencing the relevant provisions two months after the Bill’s Royal Assent.

On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment, and for her and the noble Lord not to press the other amendments in the group. I intend to move the government amendments.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I thank those who have participated in this debate. I recognise that my amendment on electricity generation, distribution and supply was imperfect; it was meant to generate a debate of this kind. I understand that there are no limits in terms of power over onshore wind and certainly do not want to imply any malign intent on the part of the UK Government, but the complexity of the current model means that it is extremely difficult for Wales to compete in a global investment energy market. If it is much easier to go through a planning process in Denmark than in Wales, why would you not go to Denmark? It is a shame that we have not come to any conclusion on this, but it is an issue that we need to look at. We may need to look at how we streamline the process. It may be another issue where we could put a protocol in place, because we like protocols as a way of moving things forward.

On the cap beneath which we should be allowed to determine energy consents in Wales, I am not sure how much further we have gone. Dialogue is good, as the Minister suggested, but I am not sure what kind of commitment that represents. I hope to retain our ability to come back to discuss both amendments on Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 55A.

Amendment 55A withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

56: Schedule 1, page 61, leave out lines 7 to 21

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, Amendment 56 relates to the proposal by the Government to reserve provision relating to heating and cooling energy systems at the UK level. I shall speak also to Amendment 57, on retaining energy conservation at a UK level.

The reservation in respect of heating and cooling is broad in its scope and risks impinging on existing legislative competence in the fields of planning, economy, environment and, crucially, energy efficiency, all of which are already devolved and under the control of the Welsh Government. Not devolving heating and cooling has the potential to prevent delivery of climate change targets across a number of devolved sectors. Heating networks are inherently local—there is no national heat network—so it seems clear that this is better delivered at a local or regional level. The case for retaining the power at a UK level has not been made.

Let me give you an example. Cardiff Council has helped to facilitate the development at Trident Park which converts residual waste into renewable energy. The project also has the potential of supporting a city-centre district heating scheme. Why do the UK Government need to be involved in what is essentially a local initiative? The Government of Wales Act is silent on heating and cooling, while the Scotland Act has no such reservation. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on why this issue has been retained at a UK level.

The current Bill also reserves energy conservation at the UK level but accepts that energy efficiency other than by prohibition and regulation is devolved. The Explanatory Notes refer to the Energy Act 1976, which relates to energy security and the conservation of fuel stocks. That was drafted in a different era when we had little awareness of climate change, an era of miners’ strikes—it was just after the three-day week. At that time, energy conservation meant a very different thing.

Furthermore, the Bill refers to both “energy conservation” in a reservation and “energy efficiency” in an exception. Are these synonymous? If not, can the Minister explain the difference? The drafting of the reservation could lead to confusion and disputes between Administrations. Let us remember that the cheapest and most efficient way of tackling climate change and fuel poverty is not to use energy in the first place.

These reservations could place restrictions on the ability of the National Assembly to meet its climate change targets and deliver on its priorities across a number of devolved areas. It makes no sense to have a UK reservation for something that is inherently local in its delivery. I am of course willing to be enlightened by the Minister on the justification for retaining the power at the UK level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who participated in the debates on heat and cooling and on energy conservation. Amendment 56 seeks to remove the reservation that deals with the supply of heat and cooling. It is important to be clear that the reservation is concerned with policy on heat supply, which is analogous to the supply of every other type of energy. Heat is strategically significant and represents almost half of our energy use and around one-third of carbon emissions. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that the Government have a very definitive energy policy—not just when I was Minister, I hasten to add—very much signing up to the climate change targets internationally, along with many other countries, as he will know; a commitment to nuclear, which I do not think is shared, certainly, by his party leader; and a commitment to diverse sources of energy. Let us put that canard to rest: there is a very definitive energy policy.

The policy in relation to heat is significant. Heat represents, as I say, almost half our energy use and around one-third of carbon emissions. The reason that we are seeking to reserve this is because it is a relatively new technology; it is about supplying heat, through policies such as the renewable heat incentive, the heat networks investment project, the combined heat and power quality assurance scheme and innovation support, and through initiatives such as the smart systems and heat programme, all of which are part of the United Kingdom’s energy policy. I accept that rollout and delivery will always be at a local authority level, but it is question of how the framework is set. These policies already exist and benefit the people of both Wales and England. It seems clear that devolving this area would increase costs, due to a loss of economies of scale, and would add complexity and confusion for businesses and householders and add to bills. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, touched on affordability, which is certainly a prime concern of the Government, along with security of supply and ensuring that energy is green.

Heat is not simply a local issue. There are strategic decisions to be taken over the coming years, including options that would require action at a national level, such as decarbonisation, possibly even decommissioning, of the existing gas grid. These emerging national-level heat issues mean that it would be far more effective to maintain consistency between England and Wales, and it is why grid and infrastructure issues relating to oil, gas and electricity are also reserved in Scotland as well as in Wales. I hope I have explained the Government’s reasons for this reservation and why I am not able to accept the amendment.

Amendment 57 seeks to remove the reservation that deals with energy-efficiency requirements. The reservation uses the term “energy conservation” to reflect the language in the existing devolution settlement. It is our contention that energy efficiency is a subset of energy conservation. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, with some of the technical detail on that, if it would be helpful. The settlement provides for the Assembly and Welsh Government to have powers on energy efficiency, except via the use of regulation or prohibition. It is not as if there is no power in relation to energy-efficiency; it is just in relation to regulation or prohibition. For example, it would allow schemes to advertise energy-efficiency measures—I think that is probably something the Welsh Government already do, although I stand to be corrected on this.

The reservation in this amendment, however, covers home and business energy-efficiency measures that are imposed by regulation, and so have been implemented by, or under, legislation or equivalents, such as licence conditions imposed on gas and electricity suppliers. Having separate energy-efficiency obligations for England and Wales would be likely to increase the complexity and costs for organisations involved in delivering the obligations, with an impact on consumer bills. That is something the Government cannot sanction and, on that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I thank the Minister. I find it quite odd when, in one breath, there is a suggestion that we need to meet decarbonisation targets and yet there is an understanding that climate change targets also have to be met at local levels. I think the Welsh Government have targets on that. I do not think you can have it both ways. On grid and infrastructure, of course there is a recognition that there needs to be a UK grid and infrastructure, but I contend that that does not make sense in terms of local heat networks. I would be very interested to see a little more detail on what the Minister suggests in relation to energy conservation, but the fact that energy efficiency is already largely devolved is perhaps something that has not been recognised in the way we had hoped. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hain]

I was going to say that I strongly support Amendments 58 and 97, in the absence of an assurance from the Minister to the contrary, because there is a strong case—following the St David’s Day agreement, the work of the Silk commission and, indeed, the logic of the case—that responsibility for this franchise should lie with the Welsh Government. To avoid taking up any more time, I hope the Minister will confirm that it will be devolved and the Government will bring forward an amendment to that effect at some point, presumably on Report.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, as currently drafted, reservation 183(c) removes the ability of the National Assembly to introduce town and country planning legislation relating to the development of railways. This aspect of the Bill clearly rows back on the existing devolution settlement, as the National Assembly currently has the ability to legislate on town and country planning matters, which can include the construction of railways.

The Welsh Government are clear that the development and use of land for such infrastructure falls within the current devolved planning system. This is supported by the fact that, since devolution, subordinate legislation has been made by the Welsh Government under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to make provision for railway development, and that such development can be, and has been, given consent under the planning system.

More recently, the Welsh Government made regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, to make provision for railway development to constitute development of national significance in Wales. At no point during the scrutiny of the Planning (Wales) Act was the issue of legislative competence raised in the context of railways by stakeholders, which included the UK Government. The inclusion of railways in the reservation would restrict the National Assembly’s ability to legislate further for railway development in the context of developments of national significance. There is a clear need to preserve the existing devolution settlement, which Amendment 70, in deleting reservation 183(c), achieves. I urge the Committee and especially the Minister to support this amendment.

Amendment 109 deals with railway franchising. At present, the majority of rail services in Wales are provided under the Wales and Borders franchise operated by Arriva Trains Wales. This was concluded following the joint parties’ agreement in 2006, which set out the division of responsibility for the management of the Wales and Borders franchise between the two Governments. From early 2017, the Welsh Government will become a franchising authority in their own right, with responsibility for awarding the next Welsh rail franchise, due to start in October 2018.

The current Railways Act does not allow the Welsh Government to permit public sector organisations to bid for rail franchises—a matter which was conceded for Scotland following Smith commission recommendations. We on this side of the House do not have ideological objections to the nationalisation of railways, unlike the UK Government. In fact we think that the German nationalisation model, which has been allowed to run franchises in the UK, has simply stuffed UK taxpayers’ money into the pockets of German taxpayers. The French nationalised railways run a much cheaper and more efficient system than any of our current players in the UK. We would like to see flexibility so that if the Welsh Government wished to bid for that franchise, they could do the same for Welsh people. The Welsh Government have stipulated time and again that they may be interested in applying for such a franchise or allowing a not-for-profit organisation to bid. Again, we would like the UK Government to explain on what grounds they justify this discriminatory action.

[Lord Hain]

I strongly support my noble friend’s case. Would she also say that the model of Welsh Water could be a very good one for the Wales and Borders franchise? That is not least because, being a not-for-dividend company, Welsh Water is able to raise capital at a far cheaper rate than on the open markets in the City, as other water companies are required to do. It is therefore a better model and that option should be available to the Welsh Government, should they choose to pursue the franchise in the future on that basis. I do not think that the existing Bill allows for that.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

The noble Lord is quite correct in his assessment. One of the problems is that the Welsh Government have indicated that they would be interested in looking at some kind of not-for-profit model, such as that of Dwr Cymru. But one of the real problems here—the real shame—is that the timing on this issue is very bad because while we hope that the Government will accede to our request on this matter, if they agree to do so it will come too late for the current procurement round. That round has already opened, so the earliest that we could see a Welsh public sector bid or a not-for-profit franchise bid on this matter would be 2028. I suppose that would be better late than never; at least we will be ready for the next time. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort on this issue.

I support the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in relation to devolving the training, testing and certification of driver licensing to Wales.

Finally, I ask the Minister for clarification on a point regarding the regulation of bus services in Wales. Traffic management is already devolved, in addition to the regulation of transport facilities. These will continue to be devolved, thankfully, under the Bill by virtue of the fact that they are not reserved. Under the new settlement, there is new scope for the Assembly to legislate concerning local bus registration. Ministers currently have limited executive powers in respect of local authorities co-ordinating bus operations, as set out in the Local Transport Act 2008, including voluntary and statutory quality contracts.

I believe that there should be scope in the Bill to allow for the regulation of buses in Wales. I hope that the Minister can confirm that this is indeed the case. Can he confirm whether the associated benefits of regulation, include the possibility of capping and regulating fares and integrated ticketing, will also be possible? It is unclear to me whether reservations concerning competition and consumer protection could prevent these important issues being pursued. Some assurance on that would be helpful. Can he also confirm that the Bill in its current form does not prevent the Assembly legislating in relation to the registration of bus services and franchising, or indeed other areas covered by traffic management and regulation in addition to other transport facilities and services, such as parking, street works and the blue badge parking scheme?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these issues relating to transport. I turn first to Amendment 57A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Section E1 of new Schedule 7A lists the road transport powers that are reserved. Amendment 57A would give the Welsh Government responsibility over driver training, testing and certification. The words “including training, testing and certification” are intended to clarify further what is meant by driver licensing, which is an exception to the Assembly’s competence under the current devolution settlement. It is not intended to modify the Assembly’s current competence; I can confirm that and it will of course appear on the record. It is important for business and road safety for there to be a consistent approach across Great Britain. It would be impractical and costly for the transport industry to follow different rules on how drivers should learn to drive and have a different driving test from the rest of the country. I do not think the noble Baroness was suggesting that. Moreover, road safety is reinforced by all road users having to observe the same rules so that everyone is able to fully understand the consequences of not observing those rules.

Amendment 57B, as tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, would except the registration and regulation of bus services from the road transport reservation. The Welsh Government already have the ability to determine a number of aspects of bus policy including concessionary fares, smart ticketing and the provision of subsidies. The devolution of the registration of local bus services—a St David’s Day commitment—is already provided for in the Bill and will complement the Assembly’s existing powers. Welsh Ministers will have the power to legislate in respect of bus franchising, quality contracts and quality partnerships. I will write to the noble Baroness more specifically on some of the exceptions and issues that she raised. I am sure she realises that one or two of those were fairly technical. I do not have the information to hand.

Amendment 97 will not be moved, as I understand it, but I will refer to it briefly— notwithstanding that I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that to confirm his understanding. Perhaps I could turn first to Amendment 58, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, and seeks to extend the legislative competence of the Assembly in relation to railway services to include the Wales and Borders rail franchise. It is not clear what the intended geographical scope of these powers would be, nor what particular functions potentially relevant to the procurement and operation of the franchise the Assembly would have competence over. This is somewhat like the issue relating to water; at issue is that the railway line is partly in England and partly in Wales. On railway services, the Assembly currently has legislative competence only in respect of financial assistance relating to railway services, subject to limited exceptions in relation to the carriage of goods, railway administration orders and compensation of passenger service operators for public service obligations, under EU Regulation 1370/2007.

Extending the Assembly’s legislative competence in relation to the provision of railway services was not recommended by the Silk commission and so was not considered in the St David’s Day process. The Bill therefore seeks to preserve the existing devolution settlement in relation to legislative competence for railway services. It may also be helpful if I confirm that an amendment to the Assembly’s legislative competence is not necessary to give effect to our agreement with the Welsh Government to take forward the devolution of executive franchising functions for Welsh services to Welsh Ministers.

Amendments 59 and 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, seek to extend the Welsh Assembly’s legislative competence in relation to rail infrastructure in Wales and the specification and funding of Network Rail’s operations in Wales. As he will no doubt be aware, the Silk commission recommended the transfer of executive functions in relation to the specification and funding of Network Rail’s operations in Wales. This recommendation was considered as part of the St David’s Day process but there was no political consensus to take it forward. The Government do not intend to revisit this issue, given those discussions. I can however assure the Committee that the Department for Transport continues to liaise closely with the Welsh Government on the specification and funding of Network Rail’s operations in England and Wales for each five-year railway control period, to ensure that requirements in Wales for increased capacity on the network are reflected. The Government also welcome the significant investments made by the Welsh Government in the rail network in Wales to support the Welsh economy. These complement the significant investments in the strategic capacity of the England and Wales rail network that have been, and will continue to be, made by the UK Government that benefit Wales.

Amendment 70, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, seeks to remove planning in relation to railways in Wales from the list of reservations. The underlying issue is the interpretation of the current devolution settlement set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006. The UK Government and the Welsh Government interpret the extent of current devolved competence in relation to this issue differently. This again emphasises the lack of clarity that exists under the current devolution settlement. It also points to the need to ensure that the Bill removes any uncertainty and provides clarity going forward. Establishing a clear boundary between what is devolved and what is reserved is, of course, a key objective of this Bill. However, Amendment 70, without further clarification, has the potential to introduce further uncertainty to the devolution boundary by creating a conflict with the “railway services” reservation in Section E2 of new Schedule 7A. As such, we need to be able fully to consider the issue and the most appropriate approach to adopt.

However, I am aware that the Assembly has already exercised competence in this area, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, under the Planning (Wales) Act 2015. In the circumstances, I therefore propose to take this issue away for detailed consideration and to return to the House and set out the Government’s position on Report. With that assurance, I hope the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.

Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, seeks to press the UK Government to a decision on a matter they committed to consider in the St David’s Day Command Paper. That matter is whether to legislate for Wales in a manner similar to provision in the Scotland Act 2016 regarding the powers of Scottish Ministers, as committed to in the Smith commission agreement, to enable Welsh Ministers to invite United Kingdom public sector operators to bid for rail franchises for which they are the responsible franchising authority. I say in parenthesis that, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out in other place, the Railways Act does not prevent not-for-profit bidding for franchises but prevents public sector bidders.

I recognise that the Welsh Government are keen to have such flexibility, in addition to that available under current legislation, to encourage bids from other sector organisations. The Government consider it would be premature to reach a decision on this matter in advance of final agreement with the Welsh Government on the terms for future devolution of executive franchising functions. At present, Welsh Ministers do not have any statutory powers to procure rail franchises. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to confer discretion to allow public sector bidders for franchises consisting of, or containing, Wales-only services on the Secretary of State. This would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom Government’s policy not to allow UK public sector operators to bid for rail franchises.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, indicated, I am committing to the progress made between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government in preparing for the transfer of franchising functions to Welsh Ministers. That is something we are seeking to do and are committed to do. As part of reaching final agreement, we will be able to reach a decision on the issue raised by this amendment regarding Welsh Ministers’ ability to invite bids from public sector operators in future procurements.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

Can the Minister give us a timetable for when those decisions will be made? Will it be before Report or is it an issue that will be resolved after the Bill has left this House?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, to some extent I am in the hands of noble Lords as to when we complete Committee stage—a subtle hint if ever there were one. I hope and intend that we should be in a position to bring this forward on Report, but certainly during the passage of the Bill. I hope it will be before Report.

Amendments 83A, 83B, 119C, 119D, 119E and 119F amend Clause 27 and Schedule 5 so that all the Minister of the Crown powers in Sections 6, 6A and 6B of the Transport Act 1985 are transferred to Welsh Ministers by the Bill, which I am sure noble Lords will welcome.

As a result of the complexities involved in the traffic commissioner being a reserved body but exercising some devolved functions, the original clause transferred the regulation-making powers in Sections 6 and 7 of the Transport Act 1985 that related to the traffic commissioner. This was to provide clarity in the Bill, with the remaining powers to be transferred via a subsequent transfer of functions order. Following discussions with the Welsh Government, we have agreed to transfer all the regulation-making powers relating to the registration of local bus services in Section 6, 6A and 6B of the Transport Act 1985 in the Bill.

On the basis of that information and the assurances and responses I have given, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hain. The Welsh public sector workforce is the linchpin in ensuring that Welsh public sector authorities carry out their functions and provide services to the public. There is a well-recognised link between good employment practices and industrial relations within authorities and contractors and the quality of the services they provide to the public.

Since devolution, the Welsh Government have led with a distinct vision for public services, rooted in the principles of social partnership. These principles have guided the development of public service delivery in Wales, which is now distinct from that of England. As many noble Lords have noted, this amendment would not undermine the shared framework and protections in respect of employment and industrial relations, but would allow the Assembly to augment these where appropriate to support the effective delivery of devolved public services by Welsh public authorities. I ask the Minister how he thinks people based in London can have the first inkling of what is happening in our schools and hospitals, which are devolved.

For devolution to be meaningful, the Welsh Government must be able to continue to pursue social partnership, defining the relationship between public service employers and employees with integrity, transparency and trust. In proposing this reservation, the UK Government are seeking to divorce the terms of employment and industrial relations in public services from the delivery of those services. The reservation will fundamentally weaken the existing powers of the Government of Wales Act and will prevent Welsh Ministers exercising their legitimate functions prescribed by the Bill on public services. We know this because a leaked letter from the government legal opinion suggested that we currently have the rights over these powers.

I echo the point made by my noble friend Lord Murphy: let us avoid a future reference to the Supreme Court. This was supposed to be the final full stop in the whole legislative framework for the devolution settlement for Wales. If this goes through, I assure your Lordships that this will be not the full stop but the beginning of another battle.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate on this part of the Bill concerning employment law. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his very kind words in opening the debate.

To put this in perspective, I think it is common ground between the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I that employment and industrial relations law is a reserved area. I am not sure that that view is shared by the noble Baroness. She seemed to be suggesting that somehow our reservation meant the end of civilisation as we knew it. It is fundamental to the country that we live in. The UK Government believe that the underlying legislative framework concerning rights and responsibilities in the workplace must be reserved. I believe as much as anyone does in good employment practice. I worked in the public sector in Wales before I went into the Assembly. I was a member of a trade union. I do not think I can still be a member of that trade union or I would be. It is imperative that we have good employment law and good industrial relations. I would not contest this. This is a very important area, but we want a simple, unified system in Great Britain. As the noble Lord acknowledged, this is not something that is devolved to Scotland. It was not considered by the Smith commission or the Silk commission and it was not part of the St David’s Day process.

The system we have allows workers to be clear on their rights, whether they are in the public sector or the private sector, in England or in Wales. 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. Whether that leads to better rights, more rights or worse rights, it seems fundamentally wrong. It is important to have common minimum standards which apply to all workers throughout Great Britain to minimise uncertainty and cost for both workers and employers. This is a matter of employment law; it is not about public service delivery.

Furthermore, it seems clear to me that if public sector employers in Wales, which would include the Welsh Government and public sector authorities, want to grant more favourable wages or more holidays then they are able to do so. They can do that presently and there is no question of it being taken back. Also, the judgment on the agricultural wages Act in the Supreme Court is an exception to the reservation. There is no question of that being clawed back as that specific piece of law remains.

If we had a diversified system of rights, workers might be reluctant to pursue the best progression opportunities in their organisation because they could get better rights in the private sector or the public sector—one or the other. They may find it more difficult to undertake collective bargaining and make their voice heard in isolation from colleagues in similar roles in Wales or the rest of Britain. I certainly believe in having strong industrial rights and strong employment rights—and obligations, too—but this has to be unified. As I said, both the Silk and Smith commissions came down in favour of a single employment regime, such as this, and there is nothing to prevent the Welsh Government or devolved public authorities agreeing specific arrangements with their staff, provided that they meet the requirements of employment and industrial relations legislation which apply across Great Britain.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, suggested that this amendment did not concern strikes. I am sure that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hain, say that it related to altering the threshold, so it is about strikes and, as drafted, would certainly include the possibility of doing that. The Government could not sign up to that, nor to different rights on check-off or facility time. The rights should by all means be generous, but they should be unified across the country. I do not see that insisting on this is somehow apocalyptic in the way that some noble Lords suggested. The reservation of employment law ensures that there is a minimum floor of rights to offer workers key protections. At the same time, it recognises that each workplace is unique by allowing employers to provide additional pay or holidays in the public or private sector, if they want to do so.

Amendment 74 was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for the Liberal Democrats, and I have added my name to it for the Government. I am not sure whether that makes it an additional government amendment, but we are in agreement with removing the reservation relating to teachers’ pay. This has been a key priority for the Welsh Government and we are very happy to support this amendment. We have been listening on teachers’ pay and are content to support the noble Baroness’s amendment.

In relation to employment law, because we see specific difficulties regarding different rights in the public sector, some of which relate to the calling of strikes but do not affect pay and holidays—which the public sector can negotiate quite separately, as it does now—I urge the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on the issue of devolution of S4C. In this rapidly evolving digital environment, it would not be sensible to attempt to devolve responsibility for broadcasting in its entirety to Wales. Broadcasting institutions play a vital role in creating that common cultural citizenship for people across the UK. That would not be strengthened by any attempt to define responsibility for them among its constituent parts. We should acknowledge that the broadcasting landscape is changing very rapidly and that there is no guarantee that the current structures will remain in future. In the meantime, it is vital that the UK role is reinforced by measures aimed at strengthening the particular contribution which broadcasters make in each of those constituent parts: improving the accountability of UK broadcasting institutions to the National Assembly and to Welsh viewers and listeners is vital. This improved accountability can best be delivered by strengthening the position of Welsh Ministers with regard to appointments made to the regulatory bodies governing broadcasting in Wales—I am sorry if I have veered off the point of S4C directly, but that is an important point to underline.

I now turn to the issue of devolving responsibility for S4C to the National Assembly. At first glance, it seems an absolute no-brainer. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I have worked for S4C: my first ever job was to be responsible for photocopying the “Fireman Sam” scripts. However, unless there are strong safeguards for the continued overall funding of the channel, devolution carries great risks. That overnight decision to remove the vast majority of S4C funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the BBC with absolutely no discussion with the channel was an immense insult. As the BBC is not devolved, S4C’s fate now lies to a large extent with the BBC. The current system is certainly unsatisfactory but, until we have a clear financial commitment from the Government to give the Welsh Government the money, it would be unwise to risk this great institution of broadcasting in Wales.

[Lord Elis-Thomas (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as we have heard, we currently have substantial change in the structure of broadcasting. The BBC is going through major changes. The BBC Trust is moving out as a way of managing the BBC; personally, I welcome that. Ofcom is now playing a far stronger role in the whole question of content at the BBC. As part of the BBC structure, there will be from now on not only a director for Wales but also a member of the BBC board. So we have a new system of devolution internally inside the BBC. I was there at the time of the discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and we were surprised at what we were offered by the then Government, which was the model of a traditional broadcasting authority. I have never believed that that was what was really required, and I still believe that we need to look at some stage at the governance of digital platforms in Wales and the rest of the UK, as well as internationally. We need to look at these issues in a new way.

I am anticipating what the Minister is going to say. Far be it from me to disagree with my noble friend on this issue, with his experience as someone who was a member of the S4C board, but now is not the time to disrupt relationships; now is the time to strengthen them—and to strengthen the relationship practically between S4C as a production body and BBC Wales and the other platforms active in digital production in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

68: Schedule 1, page 74, line 36, leave out “, deaths and places of worship” and insert “and deaths”

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the Committee to the immense overcomplexity that has been introduced in the Bill by the Government insisting on the arbitrary reservation of powers. This amendment refers to the reservation of births, deaths and places of worship.

The first thing that will strike your Lordships is the fact that the other great milestone in life, marriage, is not covered here, nor is civil partnership. These are covered by a different clause—Clause 174. Nor, indeed, is adoption mentioned in this clause. That is mentioned in Clause 175. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I always understood that registrars covered births, marriages and deaths. The separation of these functions conducted by the same registrars is another example of the unnecessary complexity of the legislation as drafted. It would have been just as valid to introduce an amendment to remove all the reservations of arrangements for registering births, adoptions, marriages, civil partnerships, deaths and places of worship. This would have brought Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, where these matters were not reserved in the 1998 Acts, reflecting the decision of Parliament to legislate separately for these matters in those jurisdictions since the introduction of such registration in the 19th century.

Although the basics of registration arrangements in England and Wales are the same, there are already significant differences between the two countries. The use of the Welsh language in registration is a distinctive feature of arrangements in Wales. At those key points in life’s journey at which legal registration is required, to be able to use one’s mother tongue is clearly a matter of great importance. Registrars are appointed by local authorities and work within their structures, and legislative responsibility for local government is, of course, devolved to Wales.

My amendment, however, focuses on removing the reservation of the registration of places of worship. This registration is different from the others in two respects. First, it relates to the registration of buildings used for a particular purpose—places of worship—rather than to the registration of life events of individuals—birth, marriage, death. Secondly, it is voluntary. We do not in England and Wales require that places of worship be registered, and the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 makes that clear. However, such registration is required if a place of worship is to be registered for the conduct of marriages or civil partnerships, or to gain exemption from council tax or business rates.

Places of worship have always played a vital role in Welsh society, but since the Welsh Church Act 1914, which led to the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales, now the Church in Wales, in 1920, the law of England and Wales has acknowledged that the religious situation in Wales is significantly different from that of England. The Welsh Church (Burial Grounds) Act 1945 continued that separation of law regarding ecclesiastical property in England and Wales. The law in Scotland and Northern Ireland has always been different from that in England and Wales, and so these matters were rightly not reserved in the Acts of 1998 relating to those jurisdictions. The removal of the reservation of legislative responsibility for the registration of places of worship in Wales is therefore an entirely logical step now that there is a National Assembly to legislate for Wales, when it is surely no longer appropriate for Parliament to continue to legislate for Wales alone on such matters.

The Church in Wales is not an established church, unlike the Church of England. However, its incumbents retain the role of registrars for marriages conducted in their premises, and its church buildings remain exempt from registration, as in England. These matters remain governed by the Welsh Church Act 1914 and subsequent legislation of this Parliament which relates only to Wales. Moreover, in spite of its being disestablished in 1920, the Church in Wales still retains a historic obligation in common law to marry parishioners simply on the basis of residence, whether or not they are members of the Church. Now that there is an elected National Assembly, which can legislate for Wales, again it would seem appropriate that the Assembly should decide whether—and, if so, how—to amend these arrangements in the future.

In 2001, the Welsh Government established the Faith Communities Forum, which enables them to consult all religious faiths and not just Christian churches in a formal way. An excellent relationship has been established through that forum. This Parliament has no such consultative mechanism specifically with faith groups in Wales, and the UK Government are regarded by many as rather remote when it comes to such matters. If these reservations are removed, we can be confident that the Welsh Government and the National Assembly will have the mechanisms in place to ensure that any future changes are made in consultation with faith groups and others, such as humanists, with an interest in these matters. I beg to move.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving this amendment in relation to the civil registration of births, deaths and places of worship. I have listened carefully to her argument. Civil registration functions, including the registration and administration of births, deaths, marriages, civil partnerships, adoptions and associated functions, and the registration of places of worship, are overseen by the Registrar-General for England and Wales, and the Government do not have plans to devolve any of these functions. Perhaps I may try to explain some of the difficulties that would arise in relation to devolution and answer some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness.

First, the noble Baroness raised the issue of the Welsh language, which is obviously very valid in relation to registration. However, it is already possible to register events in both English and Welsh where the events take place in Wales. The registration Acts, as extended by the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Welsh Language Act 1967 enable any person who can speak and understand Welsh to make a bilingual registration. Welsh local authorities, by virtue of their obligations under their Welsh language schemes, should provide registration staff who can speak, write and understand Welsh to accommodate citizens who desire this service.

The current position is that the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 extends to England and Wales. Amendments 68 and 69 seek to separate civil registration functions by specifically devolving responsibility for the registration of places of worship to the Assembly. There are clear efficiencies in administering the responsibilities across England and Wales, and the inevitable cost of separating after over 150 years would appear to be disproportionate to any wider benefit.

The Registrar-General is an independent statutory officeholder—appointed under Section 1 of the Registration Service Act 1953—who exercises functions through the General Register Office, set up under Section 2 of that Act. As the arrangements are well established, there are significant links to, and dependencies on, the provision of civil registration in a unified system across England and Wales, including the use of a single computer system for all registrations. It works well in its current form and it does not make sense to separate out one element of it. I have not heard of any particular groundswell of support for a change in the law in relation to marriage in Wales. It is, in any case, not a devolved matter, and it is a very complex issue, as one can imagine, with the diverse faiths that we have in this country.

However, I can reassure the noble Baroness on one specific point. Looking at faith and integration in the devolved Administrations, I have already been in contact with the devolved Ministers in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I have arranged meetings so that we can discuss issues such as this, and I have had a positive response from Minister Carl Sargeant in Wales and from the other Ministers. We will be looking at issues such as this in the devolved forum, although I have to say that the issue of marriage law is not specifically a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government; it is a matter for the Ministry of Justice.

However, it is a very wide-ranging issue because of the nature of the conduct of marriages. Some faiths’ marriages are recognised automatically if they take place in particular religious buildings—specifically, those of the Church of England, the Church in Wales and the Society of Friends, and synagogues—but that would not be true of other faiths as things stand. At some stage, this whole area probably will be looked at. However, as I say, this is not my specific ministerial responsibility, so I say that without being certain whether it is proposed at the moment. I do not think it is, but no doubt at some stage it will be looked at.

I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Baroness but, as I say, the Government have no plans to devolve this function. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I am not quite convinced by the argument that the separation would not lead to efficiency and cost savings—we could say that about almost all devolved areas of policy. The whole point here is that you need to respond to local needs. I am very happy to hear that the Minister has initiated the devolved forum to look at this, and I look forward to hearing more about that. It would perhaps be an idea for us to discuss this further. It is just another one of those things for which I can think of no good reason to retain it nationally. I have not been convinced that there is a good reason and so we will just have to agree to differ on that point. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

71: Schedule 1, page 75, leave out line 28

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I am sorry, my Lords, but I seem to be monopolising things a little this evening. In moving Amendment 71, I will speak to all three amendments in the group. The first relates to the community infrastructure levy—a planning charge that was introduced by the Planning Act 2008 as a tool for local authorities in England and Wales to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of their area.

In Wales, local planning authorities currently have the power to charge a levy. These authorities all prepare local development plans for their areas, which include an assessment of their future infrastructure needs, for which the levy may be collected. The authority can set charges based on the size and type of the new development. It can set different rates for different geographical areas and for different intended types of development. The levy is intended to encourage development by creating a balance between collecting revenue to fund infrastructure and ensuring that the rates are not so high that they put development across the area at serious risk. The levy can be used for a variety of infrastructure projects, such as roads and transport, schools and educational facilities, and even flood defences, medical facilities and sports and recreation facilities. As long as these have been identified in the authority’s local development plan then it can address this issue and appeal to the fact that it can have a community infrastructure levy.

The Welsh Government argued for the devolution of the community infrastructure levy in their evidence to the Silk commission in 2013. The issue was not addressed by the commission and thus did not feature in the UK Government’s St David’s Day document. However, the levy is inextricably linked with the delivery of already devolved responsibilities. The Secretary of State has not, to my mind, made the case for reserving the community infrastructure levy and we believe that this reservation should be deleted.

On the issue of compulsory purchase orders, these are an essential facet of highways and planning, both of which are devolved matters. In addition, compulsory purchase orders are essential to education services, to housing provision and to the NHS. Again, these are all devolved. The reservation of compulsory purchase of land in the Wales Bill would constitute yet another rolling back of power on what was previously a silent subject. The proposed reservation, if implemented, would cause unnecessary difficulties across a range of devolved activities that are underpinned by powers of compulsory acquisition of land.

Reserving the whole subject of compulsory purchase of land would risk rolling back, or at least creating uncertainty about, powers over the range of legislative competences already noted. Reform proposals across all these areas that may require adjustments to land acquisition powers would be likely to run into concerns about whether such powers are ancillary and necessary within the meaning of paragraph 2 of new Schedule 7B, issues upon which we have already touched. As it stands, the reservation is wholly unjustified and wholly unexplained. In this context, we need more laser-like focus on the more limited set of issues on which a common England and Wales approach is really necessary.

Finally in this group, I address the issue of buildings. Executive functions to set standards for the design, construction and demolition of buildings through binding regulations have already been transferred, with some exceptions, to Welsh Ministers under a 2009 transfer of functions order. Reservation 186 narrows the current competence of the Assembly, while Clause 47 extends the executive functions of the Welsh Minister. Removal of this reservation would therefore achieve a closer alignment of executive functions and legislative competence in Wales. As things stand, should Welsh Ministers wish to change current primary legislation governing Wales in relation to building standards, a request would have to be made to the UK Government, proposals agreed with them and time found in the parliamentary calendar. This would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I am wholly unclear as to why the UK Government think that the legislative framework for buildings in Wales can be amended only at Westminster. Again, this seems a wholly unjustified and narrow approach to the Welsh devolution settlement. Prior to this, a renowned constitutional expert said that the previous Wales Act covered everything except the kitchen sink. He added while considering this report that in this Bill, the Government have even reserved the kitchen sink. I hope that your Lordships agree that the Government have simply gone too far in pushing back Assembly powers. Will the Minister explain in particular why he thinks that,

“the regulation of … services, fittings and equipment provided in or in connection with buildings”,

needs to be devolved? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for proposing these amendments.

Amendment 71 would devolve to the Assembly competence to legislate for how infrastructure funding should be collected in relation to development. This is currently accomplished through the community infrastructure levy, which applies across England and Wales, and the mechanisms we use to raise funding for infrastructure to support development are undoubtedly important. I appreciate the points made by the noble Baroness and I am aware of the issues raised on the matter in the other place. In addition, the Welsh Government have argued persuasively in discussions with the UK Government that the community infrastructure levy should be devolved. I can therefore confirm that, as the Secretary of State announced on 31 October, we are content to devolve competence over the levy to the Assembly and I expect to table a government amendment on Report to achieve this. I hope that that is reassuring to noble Lords.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, made some interesting points, when speaking to Amendment 72, about why she believes that the compulsory purchase law in its entirety should come within the legislative competence of the National Assembly and not be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. The debate has highlighted the lack of clarity that exists in the current devolution settlement. As compulsory purchase is a so-called “silent subject”, the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government have formed different views on the extent of the Assembly’s legislative competence in this area.

This reservation has been the subject of detailed and productive discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government. The United Kingdom Government consider that legislating on the general rules and framework of the compulsory purchase system, such as the compensation regime in the Land Compensation Acts, falls outside the Assembly’s current legislative competence. However, we accept there are arguments that the Assembly could confer or modify powers in legislation for bodies to acquire land by compulsion for devolved subjects. These would include powers for local authorities to acquire land for housing, planning or education purposes, among others.

I assure the noble Baroness that discussions between the two Governments on this reservation are at an advanced stage and appear to be going well. Discussions are fruitful. I would therefore like to reflect further on her points as the Government conclude their consideration of the extent of this reservation.

Amendment 73, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, seeks to remove the reservation concerning building standards and building regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, also spoke with effect on this. Before responding to the amendment, I note that, through earlier transfer of functions orders and Clause 47 of the Bill, Welsh Ministers will have powers to make building regulations in respect of almost all buildings in Wales. There will now be parity in England and Wales as to buildings for which building regulations may be made by the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers respectively. As drafted, the noble Baroness’s amendment goes considerably wider than this to devolve competence to the Assembly over building standards. I am aware that this devolution is being sought by the Welsh Government. There are some genuinely difficult issues here in terms of organisations currently exempted from the application of building standards in England and Wales. I am none the less happy to reflect on this further, with a view to returning to it on Report.

I hope I have been able to provide reassurance to the noble Baroness and I ask her not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, things are getting much better. We have had three positive replies. I thank the Minister for his constructive approach on those issues. We look forward to working with him much more closely on them in the next few weeks, and to new amendments coming, we hope, on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 71 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rowlands (Lab)]

I support my noble friend because I worry about taxation. It can be very regressive in an individual context. There is a history of it, and it could be not only in income tax but in VAT. We should be very careful before we proceed down that road.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I endorse the views of my two colleagues on the Labour Benches. I think it would increase budget volatility for the Welsh Government without enhancing their powers in any meaningful way. I underline one other point, and that is that we would, potentially, have different rates in England and Wales. Imagine the chaos that that could cause communities and businesses on both sides of the border. The economies of England and Wales are closely integrated and I am mindful that having varying rates applied on opposing sides of the border could pose significant issues in the long run, so I am really sorry—it always pains me not to agree with my noble friend Lord Wigley—but I cannot support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I have to start with an apology. I think this is the first occasion on which I have ever disagreed with my noble friend Lord Rowe-Beddoe. I cannot agree to his proposed new clause—“Tax on carriage of passengers by air”—for three reasons. I hope that when I say what I am about to say, he will recognise that I worked very closely with him in attracting inward investment to Wales and, indeed, in and around Cardiff Airport.

My first point is that, sadly, this debate, like so many debates about the great country where I was born, is centred on south Wales. There has been no mention, apart from a sudden reference just now by my noble friend Lord Wigley, to Liverpool and Manchester airports. I view the airports of England and Wales as a whole, and I will come to a solution in a moment, but Cardiff is certainly not the airport of choice for people living in and around where I was born. It is certainly not the airport of choice for those in central Wales. Indeed, the needs of a large part of the geographical territory of Wales are not met by Cardiff.

Secondly, I have never been a strong supporter of air passenger duty. No doubt, when all the volumes are written and all the Cabinet papers published, it will be seen that I was never a supporter of APD or insurance premium tax. However, I have to acknowledge that it is a very clever way of raising revenue—so much so, as the noble Lord told us, that I think it now totals £3.1 billion a year. The noble Lord seeks, with the best of intentions, at one single airport, to make it possible for the owners of that airport—by the way, I think there is a conflict between owning the airport and setting the tax—to be able to move the duty up or down. Because it is such a clever way of raising money, if the Welsh Government were ever a little short of revenue—and I think they usually are—it would be perfectly possible for them, under his proposed new clause, to raise the amount of revenue from APD. I just do not think I want to go down that route.

Thirdly, there is an urgent need to develop a better policy for regional airports. I am aware that the Government published a consultation paper—last year, I think—looking at the future of regional airports. We are, after all, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, so I would have thought we had to look at regional airports across England and Wales to find the best possible policy for ensuring their success.

I think there are three possibilities. The first is to devolve air passenger duty within England and Wales, a possibility that, if I recall correctly, was raised. Secondly, rates could be varied from airport to airport, with a view to strengthening the claims of that particular airport. Thirdly, we could give much more aid to regional airports. I recall, and the noble Lord may remember this, that several of the companies that decided to make substantial inward investment in Wales cited the efficiency of Heathrow Airport as the reason they were able to come to Wales.

As the Parliament of the United Kingdom, we ought to look at the policy for regional airports as a whole. I do not know whether the Minister can give us any idea when we will see a policy applying to regional airports in England and Wales, but I hope we will soon. In the meantime, do not let us go off in one direction or another in favouring or disfavouring one particular airport. We have to strengthen regional airports in England and Wales as a whole.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I agree with the case eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, and others. A reduction in air passenger duty would help air passengers, support growth and jobs and cut costs for businesses. I urge the Minister to support this amendment.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate on air passenger duty, specifically the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, who has served with distinction in so many areas of public life in Wales, not least in relation to Cardiff Airport. His very good work is being carried on by Roger Lewis.

As we committed to in the 2015 St David’s Day agreement, the Government have considered the case and options for devolving APD to the Assembly, informed by consideration of the impact this would have on regional airports in England, as they happen to be; as things stand, Wales has only the one international airport, in Cardiff.

It is clear from the debate that noble Lords are aware that Cardiff and Bristol airports are about an hour apart, and the population density of the border area there means that more than 4 million people live in the overlapping catchment areas of the two airports. I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, with whom I am normally in agreement as she is normally very fair: the distance from Cardiff and Glasgow airports to the English border is not the relevant one. There is no international airport in Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is a long while before you get to an international airport, which is Newcastle.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

[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

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to add one word to what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has just said. I very much welcome what he has told us about the intentions of the Assembly, through its Counsel General, to consolidate the laws of Wales as they emerge. I raised this point earlier in the passage of the Bill. I was a consumer once, as a practitioner. Consumers generally, whether lawyers in Cardiff, Swansea, Caernarfon, London or elsewhere, want easy access to the law of Wales as it emerges from Cardiff; otherwise, they could be sued for being negligent in the advice they give. I welcome it very much and I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling us of those intentions.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 2 relating to the establishment of a justice in Wales commission. I am very pleased to hear that there has been a degree of movement by the Government on this matter. We emphasised in Committee that we were largely dissatisfied, as I think are the Welsh Government, with attempts by the UK Government to address the fact that over time there will be this increasing disparity between English and Welsh laws, albeit they will both still be dealt with under the single England and Wales jurisdiction.

We have heard about this working group and I am glad that we have had a letter to inform us of the Government’s suggestions. We have not had as much time as we would have liked to deliberate on those, but I am pleased that the Government have recognised the need for some kind of ongoing committee or representation to make sure that they are constantly taking the temperature of the changes that will be happening. We made it clear that we were unhappy with this working group; we did not think it had been thought through in agreement with the Welsh Government but had been imposed on the Welsh Government, who certainly did not feel that they necessarily needed to respect any outcomes of it. That is why we are pleased to see the move to a more equitable system in which the Welsh Government will be respected.

Whether the committee outlined by the Minister goes far enough is questionable. We wanted a commission rather than a committee, but I am not going to nit-pick on that point; it is more important to look at the purpose of this group. I am glad that the Minister recognises that there will be, and is already, a distinct legal identity to Welsh laws but a number of points need to be addressed in relation to this committee. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, just made the point that it needs to be seen to be more independent—equidistant from the UK and Welsh Governments. We have moved from the Ministry of Justice having the chairmanship to the idea that it might be somebody from the Cabinet Office but, given that it could be chaired by a representative from the UK Government, we wonder whether it would be better to have a more independent representative chairing the committee.

However, what is more important to me is the need to be clear that the people on the committee should be senior individuals, with the independence and expertise required to carry weight with both Governments. In that sense, it is crucial that both Governments are involved in making sure that they can agree on its membership. Can the Minister give us a commitment today that that will be respected—that there will be a joint agreement on who those experts will be? I should like it to be absolutely clear that this will be an ongoing group, because the body of Welsh law is likely to grow over time. It should not be a task-and-finish group; it needs to be ongoing. I am anxious to hear the terms of reference for this group. Can the Minister give us some indication of them? Would they also be agreed with the Government of Wales? If we are not to get an independent chair, those terms of reference need to be agreed by both Governments.

I hope the Minister will listen to those few requests on this issue. I am very pleased to see that he has come a long way towards us on it. A few tiny paces further would be very welcome but there have been a number of changes, as he suggested in his opening statement. On the new definition of Welsh law and in other areas, the Government have once again kindly listened to the changes that need to be made to the Bill. I thank the Minister for that.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I had intended to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, on her Amendment 2, but I am not sure whether she will now pursue Amendment 2 or seek to find a common way forward with the Minister. I will therefore truncate some of my comments on Amendment 2, but I also have Amendment 3 standing in my name in this group.

None the less, will the Minister confirm the permanent nature of the committee he has in mind? The noble Baroness raised that point herself. The difference between a statutory provision and an ad hoc provision is that the latter can easily run like water into the sand and disappear over time. A statutory commission not only would have the permanence that statute gives it but is also likely to have its terms of reference fairly clearly defined in an open way that people can respond to. A far greater degree of attention would also be given to drawing up the body’s terms of reference when it is set up. There is therefore a strong case for it to be a statutory body. But if it is not to be, I would certainly be interested in knowing what safeguards the Minister proposes to ensure that this is not something that is granted now but then disappears. As we know, and as I think the Minister accepts, there will be an evolving context for Welsh law and there will occasionally need to be adjustments to respond to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, in relation to the fiscal framework, things continue to move in a very satisfactory direction in the discussions between the UK Treasury and Government and the Welsh Government. I certainly anticipate and hope that we will be in a position to say much more about the fiscal framework before we rise next week. That is not an undertaking, but it looks promising. If it is not the case, I will write to noble Lords and indicate the timetable.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, it was heartening to hear that the committee can go forward only through consensus—that was a welcome commitment. I am assuming that that means that the terms of reference would be agreed by consensus as well. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case? He also did not address the issue of the membership of the group and whether that would be agreed by both the UK and Welsh Governments. That would be welcome. It is also worth underlining that this is a matter of critical importance for the Welsh Assembly in its broadest form—not just for the Welsh Government. I know that the Government are keen to see the Bill passed, and there is a need for a legislative consent Motion. I wonder whether we can keep open that opportunity to keep talking until Third Reading, just to give the flexibility that the Government may need to ensure that they can get the legislative consent Motion.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

First, as I have said, these things are best done by consensus but it is a two- way street—both sides have to come to it in a consensual way. So I hope that that is the case when these matters are discussed subsequently.

I have gone as far as I can in relation to the discussions that are being conducted by the Secretary of State and the First Minister. They will discuss these things, and I do not want in any way to give an indication from here as to how those discussions will proceed—but I have undertaken to say more on this when we come back at Third Reading. If there is additional information in the mean time that I can convey in written form to noble Lords who have participated in the debates, I shall certainly do that. I ask the noble Lords and noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I was reflecting on how passionate and moving some of the speeches about water were in Committee, and then I remembered that we are also dealing in these provisions with sewerage, and we do not really get quite as excited about that.

I will speak to my Amendment 43, which would introduce a new clause to amend Section 27 of the Water Industry Act 1991. I acknowledge that there has been a degree of movement on the issue of Ofwat and its accountability to the Welsh Assembly. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before giving general directions to Ofwat, the water regulator. Obviously, these directions would be in connection with matters relating to water and sewerage operators in Wales or where licensed activities are carried out using the supply system of water or sewerage operators in Wales. At an earlier stage of the passage of the Bill, I explained why these changes are necessary and I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply. I have therefore changed the amendment I proposed at that point so that his concerns relating to any non-devolved areas of Ofwat functions, which he alluded to again in his opening statement today, would be taken out so that there can be no question of the Assembly interfering in areas beyond its competence in relation to giving guidance on what Ofwat should do in Wales.

It should be emphasised that we are not interested in trying to step beyond the Welsh Assembly competence here. However, we believe that Ofwat should be accountable to the National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Ministers for the function that it exercises in Wales. Without this new clause, Welsh Ministers will find themselves in the bizarre situation of regulating water and sewerage operators in Wales but with the Secretary of State being able to exercise his function of giving a general direction to Ofwat without any consultation whatever with the Welsh Ministers. We do not think that that issue has been addressed yet.

I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the need for an unequivocal statement on the face of the Bill that Wales is now responsible for matters relating to water. We have not got that and it would be good to have it. Sometimes, when it is such a politically sensitive issue, it makes sense to write it into the Bill to make sure that people understand the politics of what is going on; it is not all about law. That is probably true also in relation to reservoirs. I have heard what people have said before, and yes, the Welsh Assembly has the ability through the laws that it has even now to stop reservoirs and a future Tryweryn happening. But let us do it because it is the right thing to do, and because it is politically sensitive and something that people in Wales would really appreciate.

I will deal now with the Government’s amendments that relate to water. Noble Lords will recall, as we have just heard, the much-heralded announcement and fanfare in the media that everything was going to change in relation to water and that we were all thrilled. Yes, the idea that an intergovernmental protocol should be established on cross-border issues including water is a good thing. But it was also made clear 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 intergovernmental protocol. The Secretary of State cannot now use those interventionist powers with regard to water. That is a good thing because we can deal with it through this protocol.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 14 and the other amendments in the group which have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, seeking to devolve the trust ports to the National Assembly for Wales. I have added my name to Amendments 14 to 22.

The noble Baroness’s amendments were debated at the previous stage of the Bill, and I would like to remind the House of a point on which we were all agreed: the fact that Milford Haven is of strategic significance. It is unique in that it has a deep-water facility and handles 62% of all our liquefied natural gas, and as such it is of economic importance to Pembrokeshire. It was included in the Silk report and the St David’s Day agreement. To my mind, the reasoning behind this reservation is totally unclear. On the previous occasion, the Minister implied that the Government were unwilling to compromise on this matter, stating that reserving Milford Haven was an essential part of the Bill. He went on to assure noble Lords that he would take another look at the arguments set out and report back on his conclusions. I look forward to hearing them.

I want to reiterate that I am in full agreement that Milford Haven should be devolved. There is, however, one deeply troubling comment that I wish to raise again, and that is that Milford Haven trust port was at one stage being suggested by the current First Minister of Wales as a base for the UK nuclear fleet. He went on to say that the Government are not considering that option, but using the hosting of Trident as a way to emphasise the strategic significance of the port immediately rang alarm bells. Devolved or reserved, Trident is not welcome in Wales, and I urge both the Government and the Opposition to put on the record today that they do not intend to acquire powers in order to justify locating it there. However, I am very much in agreement with the main points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, in Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 14 to 22 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and to Amendments 23 to 26 in my name, on the devolution of ports to Wales. The difference between my amendments and the Government’s position is that I believe that all ports in Wales should be devolved. The Bill as currently drafted does not conform with the recommendation of the Silk commission on the devolution of ports to Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just emphasised.

To be fair, the Bill allows the Assembly to legislate on ports and harbours, which is a welcome move, but there remains this category of reserved trust ports on which the Assembly cannot legislate and over which Welsh Ministers cannot exercise any powers. That category seems to be arbitrarily defined by a certain turnover in relation to ports. In fact, only one port in Wales falls within the category, and that is Milford Haven in Pembrokeshire. It strikes me as very odd that the UK Government are seeking to control this one particular port.

So far, the justification given is that Milford Haven is a strategic energy port because it handles 63% of all the liquefied natural gas that comes through UK ports. As I mentioned in Committee, this justification is particularly odd as the UK Government made no attempt to cite energy security as a policy driver for investment in Milford Haven to support the sale of the Murco refinery in 2014. Equally strange is the fact that the UK Government did not seek to control the trust port of Aberdeen, which has significant strategic energy value due to the importance of North Sea oil to the United Kingdom. There are definite double standards in this. In Scotland, all ports and harbours are devolved, while Wales is once again being treated as a second-class country.

I would also argue that devolving powers over the trust port at Milford Haven is incredibly important for the economic development of the area, and it should be within the power of the Assembly to help promote growth in Pembrokeshire. It is the Assembly which has responsibility for economic development.

Some powerful points were made in Committee by noble Lords, including one by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on the issue of safety at the port. Indeed, the very fact that so much fuel comes through the port makes safeguarding an essential issue. The emergency services, both ambulance and fire, are already devolved. I want noble Lords to recall the “Sea Empress” oil tanker, which in 1996 ran aground just outside the port of Milford Haven. Protecting our environment is equally as important as the safety issues, as is the policing of the legislation for both safety and the environment at the port. In order to have a truly holistic response to accidents, whether on safety or environmental grounds, it should be acknowledged that one umbrella of responsibility makes more sense.

Noble Lords can imagine that, if an accident such as that involving the “Sea Empress” happened today, there would be a great deal of passing the buck between the UK Government and their accountable body, the port authority, and the Welsh Government, who are responsible for environment and safety. This was not an issue in 1996 because the Assembly did not exist. I am always concerned that, when there is not an absolutely clear line of responsibility, where does the buck stop? In a case like that of the “Sea Empress”, noble Lords can imagine how the bodies would pass the responsibility for it between each other for years.

The interrelated issues of the economy, the environment and safety, together with the interaction of local communities and the local authority, all need to be co-ordinated. Surely it would be easier and more effective to co-ordinate them at the Wales level. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this point and allow the port at Milford Haven to come under the control of the Welsh Assembly, as recommended by the Silk commission.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the House will agree that devolving the Crown Estate would be a step towards fully harnessing the potential offered by Wales’s natural resources, and will offer a gateway to a prosperous renewables-focused future, encouraging us to do more to help ourselves by utilising our own resources for the benefit of our people. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 57 and 58, which seek to amend government Amendment 56. These amendments have been bizarrely grouped with the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just spoken. These amendments are about fixed-odds betting terminals. We were really pleased when the Minister suggested in Committee that he would be minded to devolve the regulation of fixed-odds betting terminals in Wales, and we are grateful that an amendment has been tabled by the Government on this issue. However, a detailed reading of the amendment reveals that it does not go nearly far enough in addressing the issue of concern to us.

The government amendment will enable the Welsh Government to address fixed-odds betting terminals in Wales under the Gambling Act 2005. It states that Welsh Ministers may legislate for the number of machines in the betting establishment for which the maximum stake exceeds £10. In other words, the only machines that would come under this provision are those where you have to spend at least £10 every time you play. At least, that is my understanding of the Government’s amendment; perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong on that point.

Under the current Gambling Act, up to four machines are authorised per betting premises. Our amendment would enable the Welsh Government to make laws that would affect machines where anything over £2 could be gambled. I am not saying that we need to regulate the 2p slot machines in Nessa’s Slots in Barry Island where, like thousands of others, I frittered away my coppers in years gone by, but we need to lower the amount that can be gambled at a time. This is something which has exercised many experts in the field. We are aware that a review of betting machines is being undertaken by the UK Government, and this issue has been taken up by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. There seems to be all-party support to reduce the maximum bet to £2. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the amount could be reduced if the matter is devolved? It would be good if the Minister could indicate that to us. If the amount could be amended here, that would be the ideal situation, but if not, will he give us an indication about how it could be done in future?

However, that is not my biggest concern with this amendment. My real concern with the Government’s amendment is that it would apply only to new betting premises. In other words, all the betting shops that exist in Wales today would be entirely unaffected and the Welsh Government would have no powers whatever over fixed-odds betting terminals currently in Wales. I know what the Government will say. They are going to say that that is what the Scotland Bill said. That is not good enough. Just because the SNP was not keeping an eye on its Bill does not mean that we will wave this Bill through when it is fundamentally flawed. It is important that we take note and the Scots should take note as well. They were not keeping an eye on their Bill. They flagged through the Henry VIII clauses as well. A message should be given to the SNP that it should step up and keep an eye on things.

Gambling is causing massive social, economic and health problems in Wales, and we want the tools to deal with them. Research conducted by the Gambling Commission identified 1.1% of the Welsh population as problem gamblers. Figures show that nearly one-fifth of problem gamblers in the UK have reported debts of between £20,000 and £100,000, while counselling sessions increased by 29% between 2013 and 2015. This is happening now, it is an epidemic and we need to do something to stop it. These machines are phenomenally popular. It is estimated that on average £3,000 a day is wagered on the 1,500 terminals in Wales. You can lose up to £100 every second on these machines. The gambling prevalence survey, a major study of British gambling, found that these machines are most popular among young, male, low-income gamblers, particularly the unemployed, as well as among students and those from ethnic minorities. Where have bookmakers decided to concentrate their efforts? They are putting them in high streets in poorer areas. To date, the UK Government have not done nearly enough to curtail the proliferation of fixed-odds betting terminals, so if the UK Government are reluctant to act, they should give the Assembly the freedom to act to reduce the maximum stake to £2 and make sure that the Assembly can act retrospectively, not just in the future. The problem exists now, and the Assembly is expected to wipe up the mess.

I guess I should be grateful that the Government have brought something forward, but I am afraid that, in its current form, I am disappointed with the amendment. I hope the Government will take on board our amendments on this important issue.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has been led astray by a very faulty piece of wording here on which I have written to the Minister. I think it is not a question of a minimum bet of £10. I believe you can nominate any value you want down to 20p on any machine. It is not a minimum bet; it is a minimum bank that you have to open to have the right to play on the machine. That is £10. Then you can have any value of stake you want within it down to 20p, even perhaps 10p in some instances. The confusion comes from the difference between a minimum stake and a minimum bank that you can buy into on any machine. If we could get that clear once and for all, this problem would largely go away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I will address the remarks on this group of amendments and I thank noble Lords who have participated in the discussion. First, I will deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, in relation to the grouping of amendments by pointing out that it is entirely possible through the usual channels to decouple amendments. That has happened in at least one other group, so I do not think the accusation was entirely fair. It is open to other parties to challenge that.

Initially, I will address government Amendment 38 to Clause 37, as well as Amendments 36 and 37, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The government amendment is a technical one to address concerns raised by the Welsh Government. Consistent with the principle of establishing a lasting settlement, it simply acknowledges that future Acts of the Assembly may prove relevant factors in the exercise of consenting powers under the Electricity Act 1989. This addition simply amends that Act accordingly to allow for that possibility.

The noble Lord’s amendments seek once more to reopen the basis on which the Government endorsed a key recommendation of the Silk commission. I note what the noble Lord said about the commission, but he will know that the legislation is essentially based on the St David’s Day agreement, which took forward a lot of the Silk commission recommendations but not all of them. What is in the Bill is essentially based on the St David’s Day consensus rather than on the Silk recommendations, although in this context they are the same.

As I said in Committee and have subsequently reiterated in writing to your Lordships, the Bill has been carefully drafted to give effect to that political consensus around the devolution of new powers which will give Wales a substantially greater degree of autonomy in determining the shape of its future energy structure. To use a word that has been used recently, it would be paradoxical if the Government ignored that consensus and came up with a figure that was not part of it. Key to that consensus was recognition that Wales and England are, and will remain, intrinsically linked through a common electricity transmission system which depends on the inputs from a broad range of generating sources.

The Government continue to be firmly of the view that the larger the capacity of those sources, the greater their significance beyond Wales and to the United Kingdom as a whole. Consensus was reached around 350 megawatts being the appropriate watershed, and I do not believe that the landscape has changed to such a degree since then as to necessitate exploring an alternative approach. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I think, and possibly others asked whether we already have the powers if we were to subsequently seek to increase that. Yes, we have the powers, without fresh primary legislation, under, I think, the Electricity Act. It might be under a planning Act, but I can assure the noble Lord that those powers exist in relation to upping the figure. That is not to say that factors might not emerge in the future which would give us pause for thought on this front. I do not believe, however, that now is the time to alter the 350 megawatts figure, but as I have indicated, the power is there if it should be needed.

Government Amendments 117, 118 and 119 relate to generating stations and provide Welsh Ministers with greater flexibility for the future around the exercise of their new electricity generation consenting functions in Welsh waters and in relation to the amendment of existing onshore consents up to 350 megawatts under the Electricity Act 1989. They simply and sensibly provide Welsh Ministers with the ability to delegate the exercise of their new functions to a person they appoint for the purpose. This is a flexibility which the Welsh Government have asked for, and I am happy to provide it.

Government Amendments 56 and 83, and opposition Amendments 57 and 58, relate to fixed-odds betting terminals. I confess that I am not acquainted with these either, although I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, has been experiencing them in the last week or so to see how they work, in addition to Nessa’s Slots in Barry Island. In Committee last month, I committed to reflect further on the arguments in favour of devolving powers over fixed-odds betting terminals. Having done so carefully, I am pleased to bring forward Amendment 56, which will transfer the power on fixed-odds betting terminals in exactly the same way as has been done for Scotland. I am very grateful for the intervention from my noble friend Lord James, indicating that the amount relates to a bank rather than a stake. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble Baroness opposite and ties in with her experience on this issue.

The noble Baroness, quite fairly, raised the issue of whether, if the amount were to change in England, it would translate across to Wales. I can confirm it would. As she rightly says, this is a serious problem which has been exercising the all-party group and others. If it were to be altered in England, that would have the effect of transferring that same amount to Wales. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, as well for his contribution. I know he feels strongly about these issues and has spoken on them forcefully and persuasively in the past.

The amendments would devolve legislative and executive competence to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to regulate the number of high-stakes gaming machines authorised by new betting premises licences in Wales. It is right that they are new betting premises, as the noble Baroness confirmed. Once again, I think the Government have been given rather a raw deal here; having come up with something that has been welcomed, we have then been accused of not going as far as noble Lords thought we had gone. I thought I was absolutely clear that we have gone as far on this as we did with Scotland. I note the comments and this is a serious issue, but I hope I have given some reassurance that if there is some movement in England, that would affect the position in Wales as well.

The Silk commission made no recommendations on the devolution of betting, gaming and lotteries, but we agreed as part of the St David’s Day process to consider non-fiscal recommendations by the Smith commission and it was in that context that we decided it would be appropriate to take this forward in relation to Wales. We reflected on it and mirrored the provisions in the Scotland Act 2016. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has proposed going much further than the position in Scotland in the Scotland Act but I am afraid we cannot agree to that. I take issue with her on one point on which she spoke passionately in relation not just to gaming machines but to the SNP. The Scotland Act is not an SNP Act—it is an Act of Westminster to which we all contributed. I think we can all reflect on that.

Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, seeks to devolve the management functions of the Crown Estate commissioners in relation to Wales to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by them. This broadly reflects a provision in the Scotland Act 2016 that devolves management functions of the Crown Estate commissioners in relation to Scotland to the Scottish Ministers or a person nominated by those Ministers. The devolution of the Crown Estate in Scotland was recommended by cross-party consensus in the Smith commission report. It was not part of the Silk recommendations and I am not aware that such a consensus exists in respect of Wales.

The Crown Estate works closely with devolved services in Wales; for example, it has agreed memorandums of understanding with the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales. I believe the Crown Estate commissioners are doing an excellent job. Last year the Crown Estate recorded a record profit of £304 million, which was returned to the Exchequer. This is not revenue retained by the Crown. The revenue from the Crown Estate is used to fund public services across the UK, including in Wales. This means that Wales is already directly benefiting from the management of Crown assets by the Crown Estate. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

Before the Minister sits down, I should like to be clear on this point. The suggestion is that there will be no possibility for the Welsh Government to look at fixed-odds betting terminals that currently exist, despite there being this incredible social problem in Wales. If the UK Government will not allow the Welsh Government to deal with this, do they have any intention of bringing forward something that would address this issue, which is devastating communities not just in Wales but across the UK?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I acknowledge that this is a serious issue. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for exaggerating my powers in relation to the Government as a whole regarding what legislation is forthcoming. I will have to write to her on that, but I acknowledge that it is a problem and I have given her an indication that if we deal with it in Westminster, of course any consequent changes would apply in Wales as well.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

59: After Clause 49, insert the following new Clause—
“Rail: franchising of passenger services
(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (England and Wales: public sector operators not to be franchisees) is amended as follows. (2) In the heading, omit “and Wales”.(3) At the end of subsection (2A) insert “or a franchise agreement in respect of services that are or include Wales-only services.”(4) After subsection (2A) insert— “(2B) For the purposes of this section a “Wales-only service” has the same meaning as in section 57 of the Railways Act 2005.”(5) This section does not have effect in relation to any invitation to tender under section 26(2) of the Railways Act 1993 issued before the day on which this section comes into force.”

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, this week, with the chaos caused on Southern rail, we have seen how poorly run railways can impact on people’s lives. I know this to be true because the shadow Chief Whip has told me to get a move on as he needs to catch a train—a Southern rail train, which is even more difficult.

One of the key ambitions of the Welsh Government is to establish and develop a dynamic economy in Wales. Central to this is the fact that we will need to ensure that it is supported by an effective integrated transport network—including, crucially, the rail network. The question we are addressing in our amendment is: who should be allowed to bid for the franchise to run the railways in Wales?

With ambitious milestones envisaged for the delivery of the public transport network in Wales, such as electrification, the introduction of the South Wales Metro and widespread structural improvements, it is important to make sure that all possibilities are open in relation to who can run our railways. That is essential for the implementation of our ambitious plans for improved passenger services across Wales. We need to ensure that the development of that franchise and the ability of anyone to bid for it are married with the economic ambitions for the area.

The current franchise saw a surge from 18 million annual passenger journeys on the network in 2003 to 29 million journeys by 2013. With the numbers forecast to grow by a further 74% by 2030, it is imperative that we plan for that growth in a more integrated and responsive way. If we leave it to the UK Government, we will be in trouble, because only about 1% of the money spent on rail infrastructure enhancements across England and Wales from 2011 to 2015 was spent on Network Rail’s routes in Wales. I repeat: 1%. And we wonder why there is disparity in the way that people respond to government in this country. That has to be addressed, and we want to address it. However, that is not what I want to talk about here. I am sorry but I needed to say that, because I am really angry about the fact that only 1% was spent in Wales. It is important that that is understood.

The Welsh Government are currently undertaking a franchise round to decide who will be responsible for running the Wales and Borders franchise, including the operator for the planned Metro. In theory, we understand that a not-for-profit organisation could have bid for this franchise round. But we would like to see the possibility in a future franchise round for the Welsh Government themselves to be able to bid for the franchise if they wish to do so. This is something that has been allowed for in Scotland and was agreed in the Smith report, but it is being denied to Wales.

Let me underline the absurdity of the situation by telling noble Lords about the current bidders for the franchise. The preferred bidders to build the South Wales Metro and run the next Wales and Borders franchise have just been announced. The choices reflect the injustice of British railway politics. Abellio is a subsidiary of a Dutch state-owned rail company; Arriva forms part of a German state-owned company, Deutsche Bahn; Keolis belongs to the French state-owned rail service, SNCF; and the only truly private bidder is MTR, a Hong Kong-based rail company. It is illogical to allow a foreign state-owned company to run a franchise in Wales while prohibiting public sector organisations from running the Welsh franchise. Wales should not be maintained as another nation’s rail colony. It is purely a matter of logic that the Welsh Government should be granted the opportunity to bid if they wish in future to run that railway network.

We understand that the next franchise will run from 2028 but we believe that this is an important matter of principle. We believe that the Government are being ideologically blinkered in their objection to the public sector in Britain being allowed to deliver rail services. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I look forward to the Minister’s response to this because he is not on a good wicket at the moment. This is not a good week to be defending privately run franchises or arguing that railways run by the private sector are automatically the solution to all our problems. I reassure the Minister that on these Benches, we are not massive fans of nationalisation either—we are fans of what works. As you study franchises across Britain and railways across Europe and the world, you will see that all sorts of configurations work in different circumstances and that similar configurations do not work in other places. There is no one solution.

I do not think it is necessarily appropriate for the Welsh Government to be trying to run a railway service. However, it is conceivable that the Welsh Government might wish, for example, to enter into a partnership with the private sector on some kind of joint venture, or to set up some sort of novel structure, of which they would be a part, perhaps on a not-for-profit basis. I remind the Minister that Transport for London is a real success story in many respects, and has a structure that quite clearly includes a government element. I also remind the Minister that when the Government were forced to take over the east coast main line from a failing private sector franchise, they did rather a good job of running the railway and saving the situation. Therefore, we support in principle the idea of giving the Welsh Government the freedom to decide what shape of franchise they want and to participate in that process if they wish to do so.

I realise that the Minister will say that there are practical difficulties because the railway runs not just in Wales but in England. If the rail franchise is run by the Welsh Government, it might be regarded as slightly irregular, I suppose, for the service in England, but no more irregular than the private sector franchise being run by the Dutch state railway company, which is what happens in England at the moment. I also realise that we are talking about a long way into the future, because the processes for the next franchise will not be prepared until 2028. For that reason, I hope the Minister will listen and think about this. There is value in playing the long game on the railways and in looking at how we can get the best investment in services in the long term. One thing that would persuade the Welsh Government to invest in railways in Wales would be to give them a little more power and control over them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the build-up from the Benches opposite. I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the railways. Perhaps I may say first, although I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, referred to it, that although Amendment 91 is in this group, I would like to return to it on the second day of Report, in the new year. I see that the noble Baroness is content with that.

I turn to Amendment 59 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. She is seeking to press the Government to a decision on a matter that we committed to consider in the St David’s Day Command Paper, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has just indicated. That matter is whether to legislate for Wales in a similar manner to the provision in the Scotland Act 2016 regarding the powers of Scottish Ministers as committed to in the Smith commission agreement to enable Welsh Ministers to invite UK public sector operators to bid for rail franchises for which they are the responsible franchising authority. Let me deal first with the point about not-for-profit and not-for-dividend organisations. They are currently able to bid and there is no proposal to alter that, so the likes of Dwr Cymru, as I indicated in Committee, would be able to bid in relation to this.

I know the Welsh Government are keen to have this power, but I have to tell noble Lords that we have no proposal in this area, particularly given that it will be 2028 before it could kick in. I think that by common agreement the current border franchise contract will be agreed in 2018. We do not propose to permit public sector bidders in the interim because we do not see any urgency about this. On that basis, I cannot give the reassurance that is sought.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response. I do not understand why we cannot have the same rights as Scotland for the public sector to be able to bid for the franchise. We are not asking to be given it; we are asking for the right to submit a proposal, which, as the noble Lord suggested, is allowed in the Smith commission agreement. It is a double standard to allow German, Dutch and French state-owned companies to bid for the franchise but not Welsh state-owned companies. The noble Lord will understand that when talking about railways you need a long-term approach. That is why we do not think it is premature to be pushing this. I am afraid I am not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to Henry V as a Welshman; indeed, he was a Monmouthshire man like myself. Of course, Henry VIII was a Welshman too, and he was less benign to Wales than the other Henry, just as the situation described by noble Lords is not benign.

Over the past 20 years, the way in which legislation has been made in Wales has developed enormously. When it started in the late 1990s, the Welsh Assembly was effectively a big county council, and all it could legislate on initially was secondary legislation. Then my noble friend Lord Hain introduced the 2006 Wales Act, under which we had a sort of hybrid situation with legislative competence orders. Now, as the House knows, primary legislation can be, will be and is being made by the National Assembly for Wales. Those of us who live in Wales are subject to the laws of two parliaments and the diktats of two sets of Ministers.

Over the past two decades, the relationships between the two Governments and the two parliaments have themselves developed. At times, it has been very difficult, as my noble friend Lord Hain and I as Welsh Secretaries knew only too well. But now my noble friend Lord Rowlands has revealed—and the Minister himself revealed it in his letter to Members of this House—that a deeply unpleasant and unconstitutional situation is growing that allows Ministers in one Government to change the laws of another assembly or parliament. That is very wrong.

I rather suspect that the Minister will say that these amendments should not appear in the Bill for various reasons—not least of which is “It doesn’t happen in Scotland”, but that was a major oversight when the Scotland Bill was going through. In previous constitutional Bills, very often a Minister has indicated in the House what the consultation process can be. If the Minister cannot assure us that such provisions will appear in the Bill, perhaps he can reassure the House that there will be proper consultation between the two Governments and the two assemblies and parliaments, whenever the changes are made. That is not as good as putting changes in the Bill, but at least it would be something.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, we have heard how Clause 60 allows for consequential provisions on Assembly Acts to be made by the UK Secretary of State. In other words, if there is a need for a tweak to be made to a new law introduced, or if there is a need to change a different government Bill as a result of the introduction of a new Bill, it could be done without going through the whole rigmarole of a full-on legislative parliamentary procedure.

We can all see the sense that now and again that is necessary. That is not an unusual state of affairs; it is not unusual for a Minister to be able to make consequential orders in relation to laws made and enacted in the United Kingdom. However, as we have heard, if a consequential law were to be introduced in Westminster, there would be that opportunity for both Houses to approve such changes before they could be enacted. If I may say so, I think that this House carries out that role very well; it is the House that really takes that seriously. As has been underlined, the major difference in relation to Wales is that the opportunity to approve consequential changes is not available to the Welsh Assembly on laws that affect it. That has been criticised vehemently by the Delegated Powers Committee.

My amendments would limit a requirement that statutory instruments would have to be approved by the Assembly so that it applied only if they related to provisions that would be within the Assembly’s competence or would amend the Government of Wales Act 2006. So it is a restricted responsibility. The Assembly would not be trying to grab power in any way—it is just making sure that the Assembly is able to do the work that it has responsibility for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for the suggestion that there will effectively be some kind of early warning system. But he suggested that it would allow the Assembly to act appropriately. What does he mean by that? What would the Assembly acting appropriately mean?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am too old a hand at devolution to suggest what would be appropriate for the Assembly; that would be a matter for the Assembly in the particular circumstances of the case. I do not think that I can second-guess what it would want to do; it would depend very much on the circumstances and the view of the Assembly on a particular matter, not to me as Minister at the Wales Office here.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

What tools are available for the Assembly to use in order to act appropriately? What tools does it have?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

Again, the noble Baroness is a Member of the National Assembly; I am not. I would expect her to have a better idea of that than I do.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, first, I apologise humbly and unreservedly to the whole House for not being here when the business was called.

In moving government Amendments 72A and 143B, I remind the House that I wrote to noble Lords before Christmas to set out the details of the United Kingdom Government’s and Welsh Government’s agreement of a historic new fiscal framework which sets out how the Welsh Government will be funded alongside further tax devolution. This agreement ensures that the Welsh Government have a fair level of relative funding in the long term which is fair to both Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. This is the view of the United Kingdom Government and it is also the view of the Welsh Government, whose Finance Secretary, Mark Drakeford, has said that he regards this agreement as ensuring,

“fair funding for Wales for the long term by implementing the funding floor recommended by the Holtham Commission”.

This agreement also sets out that the Welsh Government’s overall capital borrowing limit will be increased to £1 billion, thereby doubling the existing limit as set out in the Wales Act 2014. This increase is in line with the commitment made by the Government during the passage of the Wales Act 2014 that we would increase the capital borrowing if the Welsh Government took on income tax powers.

The fiscal framework agreement sets out that Welsh rates of income tax will be devolved in 2019, and so government Amendments 72A and 143B seek to put this agreed increase into statute and provide for its commencement two months after Royal Assent, alongside the provisions in Clause 17 that provide for the removal of an income tax referendum. Alongside the statutory increase to the overall capital borrowing limit, the Welsh Government’s fiscal framework also sets out that the non-statutory annual capital borrowing limit will be increased to £150 million a year from 2019-20, which is equivalent to 15% of the overall cap. This limit aligns with that agreed in Scotland as part of the Scottish Government’s fiscal framework. As is also the case in Scotland, there remain no restrictions on how the Welsh Government can use their borrowing powers to deliver their devolved responsibilities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have, through their Amendments 73 and 144, which were tabled before the two Governments had made this historic announcement, sought to increase the Welsh Government’s capital borrowing limit to £2 billion. I look forward to hearing the arguments that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have in support of their amendments shortly.

Amendment 143A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Kinnock and Lord Murphy, seeks to make the majority of this Bill conditional on the Secretary of State providing an assessment of the impact of the Welsh Government’s fiscal framework and the effect this will have on differential tax receipts in Wales. Ahead of hearing what the noble Lords have to say, I would point out that as part of the Wales Act 2014 there is already a requirement on the Government to provide an annual report to both Houses on the implementation and operation of the finance elements of that Act. The Government have published two such reports already, the most recent just before Christmas, and the fiscal framework agreement restates this commitment to these reporting arrangements. The next report is expected to be published in December of this year, which I expect to be before the reserved-powers model is brought into force.

In the light of the amendments that have been put forward, I have ensured that as far as the Wales Office is concerned we will seek to provide the information that is being sought here. I remind noble Lords that there is a requirement that Government Ministers in Wales also report on this separately. That would be part of that annual report. We have sought to provide an agreement that is fair for Wales and for the rest of the United Kingdom, as I indicated, so I hope that noble Lords are reassured by what I am saying. I will of course await the contributions that are to be made.

I turn briefly to Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. In advance of his comments, let me indicate that the Government’s thinking is that it is important to have a standard approach throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—across the whole of the United Kingdom. As things stand, because contributions from the private sector in Wales are limited to larger employers, they are smaller than those from the rest of the country, so Wales is a net beneficiary of the way this is organised.

I turn briefly to the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Rowe-Beddoe and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Finlay, on air passenger duty, which we also considered in Committee. The Government’s view remains that there can be no separate powers as things stand in relation to the devolved arrangements for Cardiff Airport. Obviously, I wait to hear what the noble Lords will say on that issue. In due course I will also formally move government Amendments 72A and 143B. I await contributions from the noble Lords on the other issues. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish the Minister a happy new year. It is extremely good news that the Welsh Government were able to come to an agreement with the UK Government on the impact of partial income tax devolution to Wales and the other taxes due to be devolved as a result of the Wales Act 2014. We were all aware that there was no chance that this Bill could be passed if there were no agreement.

As financing of the Assembly is central to this Bill, it is worth pausing on the matter for a while, as it is crucial to the deliverability and provision of services in Wales. I turn first to the effective change in the method of financing Wales as a result of partial income tax devolution. It has long been argued that due to its relative degree of poverty, Wales has been short-changed over a relatively long period, in particular when compared to Scotland, on the basis of the Barnett formula. In this new deal Wales will have access to around £2.5 billion in new tax revenues from the people of Wales. The Treasury will of course be anxious to cut the Welsh block grant to an equivalent amount.

If income tax receipts were to stay constant in both Wales and the UK over the long term, this would not be a problem. However, the fact is that in future years this block grant adjustment will go up or down depending on what happens to revenues in the rest of the UK. Unless Welsh taxes are to grow as quickly as England’s, we could be in trouble in future years. I am afraid that the chances of this happening are quite remote, not because Wales is incapable of raising its game but because it starts off with much lower incomes and does not have the tools to change the situation if the UK Government implement certain policy decisions which may make sense in England but do not make sense in Wales. Fiscal responsibility on the whole remains at the UK level.

To take as an example the UK Government’s policy of increasing the level at which taxpayers start to pay income tax—the personal allowance—this is great news for people on low incomes. But, because proportionately more Welsh taxpayers than English taxpayers are taken out of paying tax altogether, less tax will be collected in Wales to pay for our schools and hospitals, and Wales will have no control whatever over this decision. To be fair to the Treasury, and to its credit, it has recognised this and has agreed to make separate block grant adjustments for each of the three bands of income—so that was a good win for Wales.

I will heap even more praise on the Treasury—which I assure noble Lords does not occur often. It has been agreed that the Barnett floor will be made permanent, which means that Wales should not lose out under this deal either now or in the future. In the past, the system has worked because, ironically, the more public funding is spent in England, the worse off Wales becomes in terms of expenditure relative to England. This led Gerry Holtham to claim in his report that Wales was being short-changed to the tune of around £300 million a year.

However, the fact is that in recent years we have had an extended period of austerity. Wales has also had relatively slower population growth, which means that for every £100 per head spent in England, the Welsh Government now receive approximately £120 per head—higher than Holtham’s suggestion that Wales needs around £115 per head to respond to the needs of the Welsh people. Of course, we are not dancing in the streets in Wales, because this really reflects a reduction in the role of the state—a principle to which we are opposed, not just in Wales but across the UK. We will start believing Theresa May’s rhetoric on the shared society when she stops shrinking the state and starts expanding it. That is worth noting. We are also aware that this situation is likely to change at some point in the future, and we need to focus on this issue.

In accepting that the Barnett floor will be made permanent, Wales will always be assured of 115% funding for its devolved public services. This is extremely welcome news, and I hope that it will go some way towards alleviating the concerns that my noble friend Lord Hain and others expressed in Committee. The slight concern I had in relation to the impact of population change, over which of course the Welsh Government have little say, has been addressed by the Barnett bonus that has been agreed to, which is a 105% multiplier to any Barnett consequentials from 2018.

On the amendments which relate to borrowing powers—my Amendment 73 and government Amendment 73A—we made it clear at Second Reading and in Committee that one of the key requirements, if there should be a partial income tax devolution to Wales, was that there should also be an increase in the amount the Welsh Government are allowed to borrow. We, along with the Welsh Government, are intensely aware of the restrictions that austerity, along with the potential serious loss of European funding, will put on our ability to invest in infrastructure in particular. We are aware that, despite having the lowest unemployment rates in the whole of the UK for the first time ever, low productivity rates are a real curse on the Welsh economy, and that infrastructure investment would go a long way towards improving the situation and increasing the GVA of Wales.

In our amendment we request that the amount allowed to be borrowed should be £2 billion. This is based on the Holtham recommendations, which take into account the fact that Wales has borrowed very little under the PFI initiative compared with other parts of the UK. The amount offered by the Treasury is £1 billion. This is £500 million more than the current amount but £1 billion less than we had hoped.

I have spoken to the Finance Minister in the Assembly and he suggested that, in the current circumstances, as we have to use revenue from the Welsh budget to support any capital borrowing, the amount we can borrow is limited because we would have to divert money from the regular running costs of the NHS, education et cetera to support that borrowing. This underlines how flawed and self-defeating the policy of austerity being pursued by this Government is.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

75: Clause 3, page 2, line 31, after “7A)” insert “and is not ancillary to another provision (whether in the Act or another enactment) that does not relate to a reserved matter”

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, there are a number of huge and very different amendments to be considered in this grouping, so I hope that the House will be tolerant as I address the many key issues that need to be discussed under the broad heading of reservations.

Much of the debate on and scrutiny of the Bill have focused on whether particular subject areas should be devolved and form part of the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. The tussle over exactly what the responsibilities of the UK and the Welsh Governments are is the focus of this Bill. Nevertheless, I am keen not to lose sight of the slightly more abstract and structural issues in the Bill, and of the lack of underlying principles—underlined by the Constitution Committee in the Lords—as to what should be reserved. The failure to have a Bill based on sound constitutional principles has created further complexity rather than simplifying and clarifying the approach, which is what the move from a conferred powers model to a reserved powers model was meant to deliver.

The Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee in the Lords have drawn attention to the broad interpretation that the courts have taken to the “relates to” test. The committees suggested that applying this test to a lengthy list of reservations—far longer than for other regional parliaments—could have significant implications for devolved competence. At best this will lead us back again to the Supreme Court and could reduce the competence of the National Assembly, often in areas where it already holds that competence.

The Minister sought to reassure the House of the impact of the purpose test, which determines whether a matter relates to a reserved matter, but we have no way of knowing how effective this will be. Never before have we seen a reserved powers model with as many reservations as we have in this Bill. My fear is that while many thought that the shift to the reserved model would facilitate the progress of devolution, it might turn out to have the opposite effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I am sure that there would be plenty of room for disputes; this would not end the dispute. Perhaps the Supreme Court is needed to rule on this, but the proposed clause would not help us to go forward in any way. It is a slippery slope. We have a difficulty and clearly it needs to be defined. If this clause were passed and added to the Bill, it would not be the end of the matter; it would actually complicate matters and make them more confused. I make a practice of reading absolutely every scrap of paper that comes to me from the TUC—not a week goes by without something arriving—and, if this were such an important matter, I wonder why no one has asked me to support or even consider supporting this clause. It is sheer opportunism.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, the point is that, under the conferred powers model of governance at the moment, we already have this power. It is in the move to the reserved powers model that we are losing this power. That is why we are so outraged by this move.

[Lord Balfe]

Well, some see it as that. I see it as a clarification that was needed—something that became quite clear last year. I suggest that we resist this amendment. It will not take us anywhere further forward and I am not sure that it is useful. It will open up many further legal cases and I hope that the House will reject it.

--- Later in debate ---

Other government amendments were not contentious, so I will formally move those and respectfully ask noble Lords and noble Baronesses who put forward opposition amendments to withdraw them.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for too long. We have spent a lot of time on this group, so I will focus on just two issues.

The first is the matter of ancillary provisions. I thank the Minister for stating on the record that the ability to enforce Welsh laws should be proportionate and not just be the minimum necessary. We need a suite of options to be able to deliver policy. However, that is not what it says on the face of the Bill, and I am sure that lack of clarity will lead in future to problems and references to the Supreme Court. I ask the Minister not to dismiss the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and reassess the impact of that move to being a reserved matter in the future.

We are also disappointed that the Government have not listened on the matter of devolving industrial relations in public services to Wales. We believe that the Welsh Government currently have the power to act in this area under the conferred model and the Government have attempted to claw back this power in the move to the reserved model. This is not acceptable. We have a good track record on partnership working in Wales. We have not had a junior doctors strike and Whitehall has no idea of how health, education and many other public services are run in Wales. It is a great shame that the Minister has not moved on this issue. We shall be pushing this matter to a vote at the appropriate time. With regret, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75.

Amendment 75 withdrawn.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I listened with great interest to the rationale given by the Minister. I will need to read it again in Hansard to comprehend it fully, but I am sure that it does what he hopes it does.

My Amendment 108 was tabled following concerns expressed to us by the Welsh Language Commissioner, Meri Huws, regarding the Bill’s potential effect on the National Assembly’s power to legislate on matters pertaining to the Welsh language. It was raised in Committee, but I am concerned that there appears to be a lack of appreciation of the points put to us by the commissioner, and which have been addressed by the amendments put forward by my colleagues in Plaid Cymru. The commissioner herself is frustrated that the Government do not seem to have engaged with the substance of the case, which she has made to them as well as to us.

The possible effect of Schedule 2 to the Bill is that, when the National Assembly wishes to legislate for the Welsh language, it will 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 apply to a wider range of persons than is currently the case. The new legislation is therefore more restrictive on the Assembly’s powers than is the status quo and this represents a retrograde step.

Let us consider a practical example. The Welsh Language Commissioner is already engaged in the statutory processes that would result in placing a duty on bodies such as Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, the Crown Prosecution Service, Ofcom and the BBC to adopt Welsh language standards. This amendment removes the requirement for ministerial consent for Acts of the Assembly affecting functions of reserved authorities, public authorities and Ministers in circumstances where the Act of the Assembly relates to a Welsh language function. I am sure that the House will agree that such a provision is fair and reasonable, given that the Welsh language is quintessentially a devolved issue. Allowing Ministers and public authorities based outside Wales to second-guess National Assembly policy on the Welsh language in Wales, a policy area on which they have little if any informed opinion, is a formula for acrimony and dispute and would reopen language tensions which have abated to a significant extent over recent years.

In the House of Commons debate on the Bill, the Government claimed to offer some clarity and reassurance on the issue by saying that there is nothing in the Bill which affects the Welsh language retrospectively, and that of course is true. However, the Minister went on to confirm that if a future Welsh language measure were to be proposed, it would have the effect which we have pinpointed. Consent would be required to add new public authorities other than Wales public authorities. It would therefore affect any future Welsh language legislation applicable to those areas. The Minister’s words offered no reassurance or indeed any justification as to why this Bill should include such a retrograde step.

A briefing paper produced by the National Assembly for Wales research service confirms our fears and outlines that, under the Bill as it currently stands, there will be a loss of legislative power relating to the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. My colleagues in the National Assembly are furious about this, and it is not only Plaid Cymru AMs who feel strongly about the matter. I shall quote from that briefing paper: “Part 4 of the Welsh language measure allows Welsh language standards to be imposed upon public bodies. Some of the bodies captured by Part 4 would be reserved authorities under the Wales Bill. This means that UK Government consent would be needed before Welsh language standards could be imposed upon them”. There is a consensus that this is yet another blatant rollback and a significant reduction in the ability of the National Assembly for Wales to be able to legislate on its own language—a subject matter that is, for very obvious reasons, devolved.

Perhaps I may say in conclusion that on item after item that we have raised today, including the industrial relations amendment moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and lost in a tied vote, the Government have not been willing to move one inch to reduce the powers rollback being instituted by this Bill. The Bill started its passage with a lot of good will, in the belief that the Government would seek to find common ground. Failure to do so has led to a growing bitterness across the parties, which I greatly regret. I urge the Minister to reconsider the Government’s position even at this late stage and to rid the Bill of this devolution rollback and to accept our amendment today, even if they need to amend it themselves when the Bill returns to the Commons.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 109 provides for the transfer of all functions currently exercisable by Ministers of the Crown—UK Government Ministers—in relation to areas which are within the devolved legislative competence of the Welsh Government to be transferred to Welsh Government Ministers. Let me start by saying that, given the Government’s intention of producing a Bill that will provide clarity and coherence to the Welsh devolution settlement, it is difficult to understand why such a simple provision as the alignment of executive and legislative competence has not been included.

In providing evidence to the Silk commission, the Welsh Government made clear that a move to a reserved powers model should be accompanied by a blanket transfer of all executive functions within the devolved areas. The Silk commission agreed and recommended:

“In order to reduce complexity and increase clarity, we believe that a future Government of Wales Act should include a general transfer to the Welsh Ministers of Minister of Crown functions in devolved … areas”.

I thank the Minister for writing to me and setting out his understanding of the situation and for clarifying the three categories of executive functions. I will start with the area about which I am most concerned: the pre-commencement functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, we are not comparing like with like. There is a significant amount of legislation here that is actually devolving new powers to the National Assembly. As I have indicated, the noble Lord’s analysis of what the legislation is seeking to do is correct; I am not seeking to deny that.

Amendment 109, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, again seeks a blanket transfer of pre-commencement Minister of the Crown functions and prerogative functions exercisable in devolved areas to the Welsh Ministers, an issue we debated in Committee. I hope noble Lords have read my letter of 12 December to the noble Baroness which explained the Government’s approach on this issue. This has not changed.

I will give an outline of what happens next, which I think may provide some reassurance to the noble Baroness. In preparing the Bill we have undertaken substantial work with departments across Government to identify the remaining functions exercised by Ministers of the Crown in devolved areas. Noble Lords will appreciate that most such functions have already been transferred by transfer of functions orders made since 1999. In the light of the existing transfer of functions orders and the outcome of this work, we have concluded that the blanket transfer proposed would not deliver the clarity that we are looking to deliver through the Bill. New Schedule 3A to the Government of Wales Act 2006, inserted by Clause 20 of the Bill, sets out the Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas that will in future be exercised concurrently or jointly with the Welsh Ministers.

A handful of pre-commencement functions will continue to be exercised by a Minister of the Crown solely. These are set out in paragraph 11 of new Schedule 7B. I agreed in Committee to take a further look at these functions, and as a result we have, through Amendments 107B and 107C, narrowed the range of functions in the Marine and Coastal Access Act that require consent for modification. As a corollary to this, in Amendment 114A, we have added some functions under this Act and regulations made under it to the list of functions jointly exercisable by Ministers of the Crown and Welsh Ministers, reflecting the interconnectedness of decision-making in the Welsh zone.

The remaining Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas will be transferred to Welsh Ministers by order, and we intend to make that order once this Bill has been enacted. I shared a draft list of the functions that will be included in this order with noble Lords before Second Reading, and we are continuing to discuss this list with the Welsh Government so that we can include any further functions that we identify. Any such order will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament, so noble Lords will be able to debate the content in more detail at that stage.

Once we have made this order it will be absolutely clear which functions have been transferred to Welsh Ministers, something that a blanket provision would not achieve. In addition, a blanket provision would not provide the benefits of concurrent exercise of some powers—for example, enabling Ministers in both Governments to give grants. I will write to the noble Baroness about the issue she raised concerning Scotland, about which I am uncertain, and copy that to other noble Lords who have participated in the debate.

The amendment also includes prerogative functions in so far as they are exercisable in devolved areas. On examining the range of those functions, we concluded that none applied to devolved matters, and therefore have not acted on that.

The noble Baroness talked about the 35 more functions identified by the Welsh Government. As I said, we are looking at additional functions as identified by the Welsh Government and discussing those with them. We will consider them in light of the order that will need to be made. As I said, this will be subject to debate.

In conclusion, regarding the Welsh language, I am very happy for the Wales Office to engage with Meri Huws and perhaps provide her with more certainty about how this would be carried forward. I can assure the noble Lord, who knows my approach to the Welsh language, that there is no malign intent here at all. The language is central to everything that happens in Wales, and thank goodness it is no longer the party-political football it once was. The Wales Office, as you can imagine, is at the moment very much wedded to that view.

I will endeavour to update the noble Baroness on the Scotland issue, but I will also write to her and to noble Lords more generally about how the discussion with the Welsh Government is going regarding those functions. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I be clear? There is going to be this transfer after the Bill, but what if we find some more things down the back of the sofa later on? Is there a facility for us to transfer later on the things that we may not have found in this initial sweep-up? It is a big place, the Civil Service.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am trying to speculate what the noble Baroness might be finding behind the sofa at that stage. I hope that the process would have delivered most of the important issues, but in so far as something is discovered later on, I am sure we will be able to engage with the noble Baroness—or whoever else discovers it behind the sofa—and come to some measure of agreement. It is difficult to anticipate what that issue would be, but if it clearly should be the subject of an order, then I do not see any problem.

Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

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

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the amendments and for taking on board and dealing with these extra issues in the Bill, in particular that of the Open University. He has been generous in the way he has listened to us during the passage of the Bill.

Yesterday, like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I participated in my capacity as an Assembly Member for Mid and West Wales in the vote on the legislative consent Motion in the National Assembly for Wales on whether to accept the Wales Bill. The Minister had made it clear on a number of occasions that the will of the Assembly would be respected in relation to the Bill.

I and many others in the Chamber in Cardiff yesterday made it clear that we were still deeply unhappy about aspects of the Bill and believe that it remains complex and flawed in many ways. We had hoped that there would be a clear delineation of where responsibility lies in the move to the reserved model, but this has not been delivered in the way we had hoped. Many warned that this could lead to constitutional conflict between the two institutions in future.

Nevertheless, I encouraged my colleagues in the Senedd to support the Bill, partly because I believe that we need to batten down the constitutional hatches before we are battered around in the political flux that is about to engulf us with Brexit. I also believe that we have made substantial progress in the course of scrutiny of the Bill in the House of Lords.

The amendments that we have before us are additional to the areas where we have already seen movement in the Bill. It is worth noting and setting on record the areas where we have seen concessions: a clearer definition of Welsh law; a redrafting of the concept of Wales public authorities; an ability of the Assembly to change the limit on the number of Ministers; an increase in the Welsh Government’s borrowing powers; a narrowing of the power to amend transfer of function orders; the removal of the Secretary of State’s intervention powers in respect of water and sewerage and an extension of the Assembly’s legislative competence in respect of water to the national boundary; the devolution of powers relating to fixed-odds betting terminals; the right of the Welsh Ministers to be consulted on the strategies of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; a narrowing of the reservation in respect of anti-social behaviour; an extension of powers in respect of Welsh boats fishing outside the Welsh zone; a narrowing of the reservation on heating and cooling; a narrowing of the reservation on planning for railway developments; the removal from the reservation of the community infrastructure levy; the narrowing of compulsory purchase orders; the narrowing of the building standards regulations; and an assurance that the Welsh Government will be involved in a commission to assess the impact of new Welsh laws on the single jurisdiction. That is quite a list and we should be proud of ourselves.

I am delighted that a clear majority of my colleagues in the Assembly agreed with the decision to pass the legislative consent Motion and that the next phase of devolution can now begin. However, I endorse the point made by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas that Bills should in future be discussed and negotiated with the Assembly prior to their being presented to the Houses of Parliament.

I want to pay tribute to the Bill team, in particular to Gethin but also to a number of people who have been helpful in the Assembly. I thank Kirsty Keenan, Gareth Ball, Jane Runeckles and Gareth in the legal team. I want also to give a special mention to a man who has been involved in every Wales Bill since the establishment of the Assembly, who was the principal adviser to the National Assembly advisory group on which both the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and I sat, and who will soon be retiring having given years of dedicated service to the Civil Service in Wales. He has become one of the foremost experts on the Welsh constitution and he will be missed: I thank Hugh Rawlings for all the work that he has done on behalf of Wales over the past few decades.

I also thank Peers from all parties for their co-operation on the Bill. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Gale, who has proved so patient with me, not just on this Bill but throughout my political life. She has been a mentor to me since I was first elected, practically as a child, to the European Parliament back in 1994. She will go down in history as an unsung hero of the establishment of the Welsh Assembly when she was general secretary of the Labour Party in Wales, particularly for ensuring a revolution in the gender balance of politics in Wales.

Finally, I thank the Minister. On several occasions during the passage of the Bill he has been commended for his commitment to the cause of devolution in Wales. Above all, he has changed the Conservative Party’s attitude towards Wales. I thank him for responding so positively to our many concerns and for being willing to co-operate with us on so many occasions. The Bill is another small step on the devolution road for Wales.

It is my intention now to focus on my responsibilities in the National Assembly. I thank noble Lords for their co-operation, not just on this Bill but throughout my time here over the past few years.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity he has provided on my amendment. I echo others in thanking him and the Secretary of State for their courtesy and helpfulness. I thank their officials—Geth Williams and his team—because they have been truly exceptional in the amount of assistance they have been prepared to give. They have all been unstinting with their time for discussions, and have been willing to amend the Bill on a number of matters to deal with issues raised here.

Many noble Lords will know that the Minister, the Secretary of State and I served together in the National Assembly for very many years. We can be confident that they both fully understand how devolution works. The Minister has long been a stalwart supporter of greater devolution. As others have said, he has been responsible for the journey that the Conservative Party has taken. He has led that journey in Wales to making it a devolutionist party. That being so, and as a member of the Silk commission, he must be a little disappointed with the Bill, as I am. There is no need for him to respond to this—I do not expect him to admit it in this Chamber—but in his heart of hearts I dare say he is disappointed.

Although the Bill brings us the reserve powers model, it is not the clear-cut devolution settlement that the Silk commission called for; nor is it quite the bold vision outlined in the St David’s Day agreement in 2015, when Stephen Crabb was Secretary of State. Although it brings welcome additional powers—for example, over elections, energy, the way in which the Assembly can manage its own affairs, and so on—they are not the radical step forward I envisaged as a Wales Office Minister when this plan was hatched. I believe that the Government will come to regret the lack of a sharp edge defining the separate powers of the Welsh and UK Governments. That will probably come to haunt them in the corridors of the Supreme Court in months and years to come.

I do not want to imply that the Wales Office has not tried—far from it. I am sure that the Wales Office has tried as hard as possible on the Bill. As I recall clearly, Welsh Ministers going round Whitehall asking for more powers for Wales are not always greeted with open arms. That was even the case in the coalition days, where devolution was the name of the game.

However, I am a pragmatist and I accept that under the new regime this is as good as it gets. It is definitely a step forward because it includes particularly important key powers over income tax and because it is twinned with the fiscal framework, which is hugely important. I am very disappointed that Plaid Cymru voted against this yesterday because, personally, I could not vote against additional powers for Wales, whatever the downsides to the settlement. We particularly welcome the constructive approach of both Governments in coming together on the Bill. It is part of a package which should make a big change to the political rhetoric of Wales and a real step forwards.

Only two years ago, I took a Wales Bill through this House; that, too, was just a modest step forward but we are going in a particular direction. I welcome that direction and I am sure that the Minister will forgive me for saying that I just wish we could walk a bit faster. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.