Wales Bill

David Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing interest in these matters. I would point out that 350 MW is quite a significant capacity. I would also remind him that the basis for this proposal was a recommendation from the Silk commission.

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

Further to that point, though, does my right hon. Friend agree that in respect of wind generation, the Assembly’s powers will now be unlimited?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

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

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend mentioned what will effectively be the incorporation of the Sewel convention in statute, for the first time so far as Wales is concerned. Clause 2 of the Bill states:

“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.”

If the United Kingdom Parliament were to legislate for such matters and there were to be a challenge from the Welsh Government as to whether that was “normal”, how would that matter be adjudicated?

[Alun Cairns]

The basis of this clause has been drawn from the Scotland Act. It would be a matter for the courts to judge in such a situation, but this underlines the principle that Parliament is sovereign in these matters, although we will absolutely respect the rights of the Assembly. That is why we have included a clause stating that we will not “normally” legislate on devolved areas.

The debate on the draft Bill, which was published for pre-legislative scrutiny last autumn, was dominated by justice issues. In particular, it focused on something that was labelled the necessity test, and the inclusion of the test led to calls for a separate jurisdiction. I have listened to those concerns, and this Bill has moved a long way from the draft version and is by general consensus more suitable. The necessity test was believed to set too high a bar, and calls were made for a lower threshold. I have gone further, however, and removed the test entirely when the Assembly modifies the civil and criminal law for devolved purposes. As a consequence, many of the arguments for a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales should have fallen away.

However, I recognise the validity of some of the points raised during pre-legislative scrutiny about the existence of Welsh law. The Bill formally recognises for the first time that a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers forms part of the law of England and Wales within the England and Wales jurisdiction. The recognition of Welsh law needs distinct arrangements. As a result, I have been working with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary to establish an officials-led working group to look at how those administrative arrangements should be improved. The group includes representatives from the Judicial Office and the Welsh Government, and it will take forward its work in parallel with the progress of the Bill through this House and the other place.

The single jurisdiction can readily accommodate a growing body of Welsh law without the need for separation. There are many reasons why a separate jurisdiction would be to the detriment of Wales. As well as the unnecessary upheaval and cost of such a change, the economic and commercial interdependence of the legal profession on both sides of the border means that separation would undermine the success of one of Wales’s fastest growing sectors—the legal profession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

That relates to the discussions with the National Grid, which, quite obviously, has an interest in the matter. I will happily provide further detail to my hon. Friend if he has specific examples that he would like to pursue.

[Mr David Jones]

Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), is it the case that the Assembly’s powers will be limited to 132 kV transmission lines, and not to the major grid connections to which my right hon. Friend is referring?

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend has expert knowledge. Obviously, he has some detailed understanding of this Bill and a range of other Acts that relate to such decision making. As this Bill progresses through the House, particularly through Committee, we will be able to examine, line by line, the consequences of each individual clause. I will happily write to him should he need further information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I have two points to make in response. First, it was the Wales Act 2014 that devolved tax-varying powers to the Assembly. This Bill will go one step further by removing the requirement for a referendum. Secondly, devolution has moved forward since that time. We can either seek to have the hollow argument about rowing back, or we can make the Welsh Government more accountable and more responsible for the money that they raise. Under current legislation and current arrangements, the Welsh Government already have responsibility for raising £2.5 billion of their own income, through council tax, business rates and other taxes such as stamp duty, land tax, aggregate tax and landfill tax. According to the forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the devolution of income tax will transfer something in the region of £2 billion to the Welsh Government, which is a smaller sum than the one for which they already have responsibility.

[Mr David Jones]

To develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), is it not the case that just over 12 months ago the Conservative party fought on a manifesto that pledged that there would be a referendum before any tax-varying competence was devolved to the Assembly?

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend played a significant part in the development of legislation relating to Wales when he was Secretary of State. He will recognise how quickly the devolution make-up of the UK has developed and matured in that time. This is the next logical step in making the Assembly more mature and responsible, and ultimately more accountable to the people of Wales, because it will have to consider how money is raised as well as how it is spent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

It comes as no surprise that an intervention from the hon. Gentleman focuses on his party’s determination to see Wales become an independent state, regardless of the economic consequences. As I have just explained, it is crucial to give the Assembly the opportunity to negotiate a proper, fair fiscal framework with a “no detriment” principle before it accepts responsibility for income tax. That opportunity is extremely important.

[Mr David Jones]

The hon. Lady mentions what she sees as the need for the Assembly to consent to the devolution of tax powers, but what about the people of Wales? Given that the people of Scotland were consulted in a referendum prior to tax-raising powers being given, does she not think that the people of Wales deserve the same respect?

[Nia Griffith]

We have moved on since the last Wales Bill, but it is vital that there is a mechanism to establish a clear financial framework with a “no detriment” principle so that the Welsh Assembly can have the confidence to decide whether to accept the devolution of tax-raising powers.

As I said at the outset, this Bill is not perfect and it will require amendments, but I hope that the UK Government will commit to working constructively with the Welsh Government and with Opposition parties to ensure that we deliver the strong, stable, workable settlement that the people of Wales deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing the Bill. I have to say, however, that that should not be interpreted as meaning that I greet it with unalloyed enthusiasm. This is the fourth major piece of constitutional legislation aimed at conferring devolved powers on Wales in less than 20 years. The very fact that we are in the Chamber to debate this yet again shows just how flawed the original devolution settlement was and how important it is that, on this occasion, we try to get it right at the fourth time of asking.

The Secretary of State has very kindly presented a briefing note on the Wales Bill, in which he acknowledges that

“there is more work to do”,

and that there are “unresolved issues” and “unfinished business”. He goes on to say that he is looking to

“amend the Bill if necessary during its parliamentary passage.”

I must say that he is probably not likely to be disappointed in that regard.

The opening clauses of the Bill follow the current fashion for declaratory legislation. We are solemnly told that the

“Assembly and the Welsh Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.”

We are also told that they are

“not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales voting in”—

yet another—

“referendum.”

We are told that there is a “body of Welsh law”, which should not of course be in any way confused with a Welsh jurisdiction. There is a declaration that in effect incorporates the Sewel convention into statute, in that the Bill declares that this Parliament

“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly.”

Such declarations are all well and good, but they are in danger of overlooking the constitutional fact that this Parliament is supreme, which makes one wonder about their worth and whether they are in reality mere window dressing.

It is somewhat ironic that, having quite rightly abandoned the necessity test, the Government are now apparently introducing a normality test. As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, that means that the courts might intrude on parliamentary sovereignty by deciding or being asked to decide whether a piece of legislation passed by this Parliament is, so to speak, normal.

The Bill does of course change the devolution settlement from a conferred powers model to a reserved powers model, which is deemed to make matters clearer. I have to say that I do not believe that a reserved powers model is, as many contend, a panacea. The reserved powers model is in reality simply a mirror image of the conferred powers model. The nature of the model is less important than the clarity of language, as other Members have pointed out.

That is particularly important in relation to whether the reservations are comprehensive. The danger is that if the reservations are not comprehensive, there will be problems. I am glad, for example, that my right hon. Friend has not emulated a former Secretary of State for Scotland, who made sure that Antarctica was a reserved matter, and that we will not therefore see an attempt to create a new Patagonia on that continent.

The necessity test has been abandoned to the extent that it is no longer the case that the Assembly can modify criminal and private law only where modification

“has no greater effect otherwise than…is necessary to give effect to the…provision.”

That was a positive invitation to go to the Supreme Court. However, there is still a necessity test in relation to the law on reserved matters. Proposed new section 108A(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 will provide that Assembly Acts cannot modify the law on reserved matters unless ancillary to a provision that is not reserved, but modification cannot go further than is necessary to achieve the devolved objective. Words such as “necessary” and “normally” lack objectivity, and are therefore subject to interpretation, including, in difficult cases, by the Supreme Court. I do not believe, therefore, that simply changing the model of devolution will necessarily achieve the clarity that everyone wants. In Committee, I believe it will be necessary to test whether the reservations are truly comprehensive to avoid any further difficulties of the sort we have already experienced. To be fair, however, the Secretary of State has acknowledged that the Bill is a work in progress, and he will no doubt be expecting such tests and, if necessary, significant amendments in Committee.

I do not want to dwell too lengthily on individual provisions, but some matters are worth mentioning. First, as the Secretary of State will have anticipated from my interventions, I have a huge concern about the proposal that income tax varying powers in the 2014 Act should now be triggered without a referendum. As a Conservative, I have a particular concern, because at the last general election—despite the apparently rapid passage of time, I remind him that it was only just over a year ago—I and Conservative colleagues campaigned on the basis that the powers would not be triggered without a referendum. Indeed, when I was specifically asked on the doorstep whether the powers would be imposed on the Assembly without consent, I made it absolutely clear that a referendum was contemplated. I must say that it is positively disrespectful of the people of Wales for this Parliament to seek to impose new tax-raising competences without consulting them first.

That was done in the case of Scotland, and despite the interventions already made by Opposition Members, it is perfectly possible to formulate such a question and, in the case of Scotland, one that could be answered in the affirmative. If the Scots are entitled to that, surely the people of Wales should be entitled to the same level of respect. I invite the Secretary of State to think about that, and to consider whether, in the circumstances, the Bill should be amended by the deletion of clause 16.

Secondly, although this may appear to be a minor point, I find it difficult to understand the rationale for devolving to the Assembly the setting of speed limits. Wales and England have a continuous, porous border, and every day there are many thousands of journeys back and forth across the border. It does not bear scrutiny that there should potentially be different speed limits on either side of that border—it makes no sense. I cannot understand what possible reason there could be for devolving the setting of speed limits. What mischief is it aimed at? Who asked for it? Why is it necessary?

Thirdly, there is the issue of electricity generating consents, set out in clause 36. I intervened on the Secretary of State about that. The 350 MW limit provided for in the Bill seems to have little practical significance, because wind generating stations are expressly excluded. The granting of energy generation consents for capacities of more than 350 MW will remain with the Secretary of State, and there are few conventional power stations with an output of less than 350 MW.

The worrying fact is that although the Bill is silent on the subject, it devolves competence to the Assembly for all onshore wind farms, with no upper limit at all. I refer the Secretary of State to the excellent Library note, which points out that the Energy Act 2016 has transferred competence for wind farm consents to local planning authorities. A piece of Welsh legislation with which I have no doubt we are all familiar, the Developments of National Significance (Specified Criteria and Prescribed Secondary Consents) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, provides that all wind farm developments in Wales are designated as developments of national significance. According to the Library note, which I have no reason to doubt, that means that all such developments, whether of up to 50 MW or more than 50 MW, will be determined by procedures set by the Assembly.

Given the thrust of policy at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, I suggest that the consequence of that will be a rush to develop wind farms in Wales. Indeed, I suggest that there may be a free-for-all. Areas such as my constituency, Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnor, which already have a lot of wind farms, are likely to be under further pressure for wind farm developments.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I hesitate to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of scaremongering, but the pace of development of renewable technologies relies on the subsidy that is available, which is determined by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

[Mr Jones]

That is not the point that I am addressing, which is about competence. Given that the upper limit for wind farm consents in Wales is currently only 50 MW, it is alarming that it is now likely to be unlimited.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I have two TAN 8—technical advice note 8—areas in my constituency, and in one of them the only developments that have occurred have been determined by Westminster. The local planning authority, which is responsible for developments of below 50 MW, has turned them down.

[Mr Jones]

That may be the case, but I say with huge respect that I think the hon. Gentleman is missing the point, which is about competence. It seemed clear from the Secretary of State’s response to my intervention that what I said was news to him. It was based on the Library note, which I believe is accurate. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter, and he may well wish to table amendments himself in Committee.

The Bill is a further step in the process of devolution, and I believe that it is a brave attempt to rectify the errors of the past. However, I strongly question whether, in its current form, it will do the job that it is intended to. As I said, the Secretary of State anticipated amendments in his briefing note, and I have no doubt that he will look forward to them with great anticipation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

The Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee is no longer in the Chamber, but I should like to thank him for a fascinating insight into both the previous Wales Bill and the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought to the House today to start a new journey. The pre-legislative process certainly gave us an insight into how legislation is put together, but, perhaps more broadly, it also gave us an insight into the devolution journey on which we embarked with the creation of the National Assembly for Wales.

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State and his team for the amendments that have brought us from the pre-legislative Bill to what is before us today. The dropping of the necessity test is very welcome, as are the inclusion of the Severn tolls in the reservations and the removal of various elements. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the cross-party Welsh Affairs Committee to establish how we can improve the Bill further as it proceeds through its various stages.

Let me begin by tackling the elephant in the room. I support the income tax provisions, but I think that the horse has bolted to some extent. If we look at business rates and council tax receipts, we see that more than £2 billion of income is being raised, and is already devolved to the Welsh Government. That is more than income tax, and it gives the Welsh Government a bit of accountability, which is welcome. The more accountability we can give that institution, the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies) touched on some of the more worrying aspects of the competence of the Welsh Government to date. It has taken many forms, but it has, I am afraid, been Labour-led since the creation of the Assembly.

I understand the passion expressed by some of my colleagues, and I find it difficult to separate my heart from my head. My heart says “Do not give the Welsh Labour Government any more power. They must prove that, to date, they have been competent in regard to education, health, local government and economic development.” At the same time, my head says that this is a very principled debate about the devolution journey and the powers that the House needs to give the Welsh Assembly as an institution. A journey is taking place in my own head, or a fight between poor performance and more principled considerations about the localism agenda.

I was very taken with the pragmatic approach of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) to some of the battles over devolution, but I wanted to focus for a moment on the fact that the income tax provision constitutes a very welcome step. It will improve transparency and accountability, although we are already there with more than £2 billion of revenue from council tax and business rates, which the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly completely control.

[Mr David Jones]

How comfortable is my hon. Friend about being asked to break a manifesto commitment?

[Craig Williams]

Well, the world moves on. I cannot say that I am ever terribly comfortable about breaking a manifesto commitment, but when it comes to income tax, I have said consistently to my electorate—throughout the general election period and before—that we need accountability in the Welsh Assembly and, more important, in the Welsh Government. I believe that passionately. My constituency, more than most, has seen at first hand some of the real scandals caused by complacency, such as the scandal of the regeneration investment fund for Wales, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. Some of the most expensive residential land on the main site, in Lisvane, was sold at agricultural prices. There is a complacency, and until the place has real accountability and is shaken up, I believe we are going to continue in the same vein. I have made that very public statement, throughout my time as a candidate and in this House. I stand here comfortably, although I accept the wider point about the manifesto. However, the people of Cardiff North and of Wales put us here to make unpopular and difficult decisions, as well as the popular and easy decisions, and I think this is one of the former.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr David Jones]

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

[Hywel Williams]

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

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

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