Wales Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise the funding floor introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was a clear commitment and promise delivered by the Government. Of course, the Barnett adjustments need to be considered, and discussions between the Welsh Government and the Treasury and my officials are ongoing. We would like to see progress on those matters as the Bill is scrutinised throughout the parliamentary process. Both Administrations are determined to find a transparent way that will rightly serve the people of Wales and the Welsh and UK taxpayer.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I wish to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the comments of his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Scotland Act:

“This is a truly significant day for Scotland. If this Bill completes its parliamentary progress, it will add to the already extensive responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament a range of important new powers. It provides even greater opportunities for the Scottish Government to tailor and deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish issues.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 1683.]

Was the Secretary of State for Scotland right, and if so, why has the Secretary of State for Wales brought forward a Bill that pales into insignificance when compared with the Bill given to the people of Scotland?

[Alun Cairns]

I am somewhat disappointed by the tone the hon. Gentleman is taking. We have developed the Bill through consensus. We have responded to the comments that were made following the publication of the draft Bill, and before that we had the St David’s day agreement, in which his party was an active participant. We have sought to develop political consensus, but ultimately we do not have a uniform approach to devolution. What is right for Scotland is not necessarily right for Northern Ireland or for Wales. Clearly we have different circumstances and needs, and we should respond to those needs by developing appropriate Bills. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will actively participate and seek to improve the Bill through the parliamentary process; I am determined to achieve a Bill that all Members of the House will be at best satisfied with.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Will the working group be looking at the justice impact assessments mentioned in the Bill, and will it present its report before we have our final vote on the Bill on Third Reading?

[Alun Cairns]

The terms of reference for the working group have been published, and I would expect it to report in the autumn. The justice impact assessment is a matter for the Assembly and for scrutiny by Assembly Members. The principle of having a justice impact assessment is fundamental to proper scrutiny of any mature legislature. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, we might be able to debate that when I get to that element—as I am about to do now.

Some Members, such as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), have asked me about the requirement in the Bill for justice impact assessments to accompany Assembly Bills, and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify its purpose a little further. It is only natural for a mature legislature to consider the consequences of its own legislation. The impacts of Assembly Bills are assessed against a range of matters, including, quite rightly, the Welsh language and equalities, but no formal assessment is made of their potential impacts on the justice system, which is vital for its laws to be enforced properly. It is simply common sense that any such matters are considered and such an assessment is made, to help with the efficient delivery of justice services.

The Government committed in the St David’s day agreement to implementing—

[Jonathan Edwards]

This is the key point in relation to these new impacts. Who is going to be making the assessments? I take it that the Minister’s view is that that is a matter for the Welsh Government, but would those assessments at any point lead to a trigger whereby the Ministry of Justice could object to Welsh legislation?

[Alun Cairns]

It is a matter for Assembly Members, and the requirement is that the Standing Orders include a request for a justice impact assessment. No, there will be no veto arising out of the justice impact assessment. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a practical example.

The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 has supporting documents in excess of 30 pages, with 15 lines talking about the justice implications or the consequence thereafter. The principle we are requesting is that full, proper consideration be given to the justice consequences that arise thereafter. That is mature scrutiny, and I pay tribute to the way in which the First Minister responded to the question on the Floor of the Assembly some weeks ago. Rather than a general accommodation with the Standing Orders, we are talking about a specific request for a justice impact assessment.



The Government committed in the St David’s day agreement to implement a clear devolution boundary for Wales. The reserved powers model at the heart of the Bill will make the Welsh devolution settlement clearer by drawing a well-defined boundary between what is reserved and what is devolved. Anything not specifically reserved is devolved to the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers—it does not get clearer than that! The Bill’s pre-legislative scrutiny prompted a wide-ranging discussion on what the future shape and structure of Welsh devolution should be. The list of reservations included in the draft Bill was criticised as being too long. We have listened, and the list in the Bill now contains fewer reservations and I have made the descriptions more accurate. More importantly, there is a clear rationale for reservations that are included. The list of reservations will never be as short as some would like, but clarity requires specificity. The list included in the Bill will be subject to further fine tuning, but I believe that, broadly, we have struck the right balance.

The Bill also clarifies the devolution boundary by defining which public authorities are Wales public authorities—devolved bodies—with all other public authorities being reserved authorities. To add further clarity, the Bill lists those bodies that are currently Wales public authorities, a list we have compiled in consultation with the Welsh Government and the Assembly Commission. Naturally, the consent of the UK Government will be needed if an Assembly Bill seeks to impose or modify the functions of a reserved body. That follows the well-established principle that the Assembly approves through legislative consent motions UK Government legislation that touches devolved areas.

The final key element of a clear settlement is the change we are making to the functions of Welsh Ministers. It is hard to believe that Welsh Ministers have not been able to exercise common-law powers up to now, unlike Ministers of the Crown and Scottish Ministers; the Bill puts the misjudgment of the Government of Wales Act 2006 right. Similarly, the Bill also removes the current restriction on the Assembly being able to modify Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas. It lists those functions that Ministers of the Crown and Welsh Ministers exercise concurrently or jointly, and the small number of Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas the Assembly could modify, with the consent of UK Ministers. All remaining Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas will be transferred by order to the Welsh Ministers.

Taken together, these provisions deliver a settlement that will make it clear whom people in Wales should hold to account—the UK Government or the Welsh Government—for the decisions that affect their daily lives. I would like to inform the House that some minor clarifications have been made to the explanatory notes relating to some of these clauses, and revised copies of the notes are available for Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

The Secretary of State has told us that he will clarify that, so we will know whether that will be possible. I understand from what he has said today that it is very unlikely, because he said it was about people who can vote, not the system itself, but we await clarification from him to know where we are going.

The Bill is designed to strengthen and streamline the current devolution settlement. For example, clause 18 allows the Assembly to implement European Union legislation directly where it relates to devolved matters. That is a sensible development, and one that I sincerely hope does not become redundant by the time the Bill goes into Committee after the referendum recess.

The biggest structural change in the Bill is the move to a reserved powers model, as recommended by the Silk commission. As Silk said, that should allow the Assembly to legislate

“with greater confidence and with greater regard to the purpose of the legislation, rather than being constrained by uncertainty”.

That change will bring greater clarity to our devolution settlement and, if the Government get the Bill right, it should result in fewer cases being taken to the Supreme Court. Too much public money has been spent on such manoeuvres.

I welcome the important statement on the permanence of the Assembly and of Welsh government in clause 1, and the inclusion of the Sewel convention that the UK Parliament will seek consent from the Assembly before legislating on devolved subjects. This recognises that just 17 years since the process of devolution began, the Assembly has become a fundamental part of our constitutional landscape. In 2011 the Welsh people voted for the Assembly to have full law-making powers, an important sign of confidence in the institution. Together with this Parliament, the Assembly should now be recognised as one of two significant legislatures that represent the people of Wales.

It was the Assembly’s ability to pass laws in devolved areas that the draft Bill put at risk in the most unnecessary and short-sighted way. It is a simple fact that as a law-making body, the Assembly must have the ability to change the law, but the draft Bill would have required it to pass a number of necessity tests before being able to amend the civil or criminal law. In the words of David Melding, the Conservative Chair of the Assembly’s Constitution Committee, these tests would have created

“an atmosphere of profound uncertainty”.

He went on to say:

“Taken to extremes, the very exercise of the legislative function could be compromised.”

I am pleased that the Government have seen sense and removed these tests so that the Assembly can amend the law when it needs to, but there are other tests that I will return to later.

The removal of the necessity tests means that a distinct body of Welsh law will continue to grow over time, a fact that poses a challenge to the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. We understand that the justice impact assessments outlined in clause 10 are intended to address this point, but a more long-term solution may need to be found at some point in the future. We trust that the working group consisting of the Ministry of Justice, the Lord Chief Justice and the Welsh Government will keep this issue under review.

On the areas of the Bill that require more work, I want to deal with the reservations, the necessity tests, and the devolution of income tax. It was a common theme in the response to the draft Bill that the list of reservations was far too long. Even the Secretary of State’s predecessor expressed surprise at the number of reservations—an unusual admission, given that it was his Bill. This rather suggested that there was a lack of a clear rationale for the compilation of that list. I note that the list of reservations in this Bill is very slightly shorter but it still runs to 34 pages, and the justification for reserving some subjects is far from clear.

The root of the problem with the reservations in the draft Bill was that the Wales Office allowed Whitehall to have free rein in deciding which areas it was willing to devolve, rather than adopting the principled process that the Silk commission recommended. In its report on the draft Bill, the Welsh Affairs Committee said that Whitehall Departments should be given

“clear guidance about the questions they should ask themselves before deciding whether or not to reserve a power”,

and that this guidance

“must be published prior to the publication of the Bill, so that the final list of reservations can be assessed against the criteria given.”

It is regrettable that no such fresh guidance has been published, which would allow us to decide whether the list of reservations has been drafted with clear criteria in mind.

In response to the Select Committee’s report, the Secretary of State said:

“The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill provide a clear rationale for each reservation included in the list.”

I am afraid that this is not the case. The justifications offered in the explanatory notes are patchy at best. Most just state what is reserved, without explaining why. We will consider the list in more detail as the Bill proceeds, but the Secretary of State must be ready to justify each of the reservations and to present a rational basis for the final list.

It is already clear that some of the reservations are unjustified. The decision to create a special category of reserved trust ports is one example. This means in practice that control of every Welsh port except Milford Haven will be devolved to the Assembly. The Government have presented no sensible justification for this, or for the turnover requirement in clause 31, based on the Ports Act 1991. As the Bill stands, ports that meet an annual turnover requirement of £14.3 million or more remain under the control of the UK Government, while powers over those with a smaller turnover would be transferred to Welsh Ministers. This seems to create a perverse incentive, because if the Welsh Government foster economic development in smaller ports, which significantly increase their turnover as a consequence, the Welsh Government could find that they lose control over those ports.

In the absence of an explanation, we can only assume that the Government want to keep control of the most profitable ports, with a view possibly to privatising them in future, as indeed the Government considered doing in 2011. Strange, is it not, that this annual turnover is the same threshold above which ports can be privatised under the 1991 Act? Previous privatisation proposals have raised serious concerns about asset-stripping by speculators and the fragmentation of ports, and these dangers would be just as real in the case of Milford Haven.

On the necessity tests, I am pleased that the most problematic of these, relating to civil and criminal law, have been removed from the Bill. This has made the Bill markedly clearer and more workable than its predecessor. However, two necessity tests remain in clause 3 and in paragraph 1 of new schedule 7B. As many witnesses noted during the Welsh Affairs Committee’s inquiry into the draft Bill, the problem with these tests is the uncertainty surrounding the word “necessity”. A representative from the Law Society described it as certainly not a term that is as well understood by lawyers as a concept, which raises the potential of legislation being challenged not just in the Supreme Court, but in the course of other civil and criminal proceedings. Given these very real concerns, would it not be preferable to ditch the necessity tests entirely and retain the wording in the Government of Wales Act 2006, which avoids invoking this legally difficult concept?

On the ministerial consents, we welcome the simplified system proposed in the Bill, but the Government could go further. The Welsh Affairs Committee has recommended introducing a 60-day time limit for consent to be given or refused. A change to this effect would give greater confidence and I urge the Government to consider adopting it in law.

Finally, on income tax, the current situation is that the Welsh people would have to support the devolution of income tax in a referendum before the powers could be transferred to the Assembly. This Bill removes that requirement, meaning that the Secretary of State could devolve income tax powers via an Order in Council, without the Assembly even having to agree to it. That cannot be right. Allowing the Assembly to levy taxes is a very significant constitutional development, and one which should not take place without a clear democratic decision, so we are asking the Secretary of State to consider amending the Bill to require the Assembly to agree to the devolution of tax powers before they are devolved.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The shadow Secretary of State for Wales will be aware of the comments of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, who said on the BBC on 9 November 2015, on the Scotland Bill, which gave full income tax powers to Scotland:

“When this Bill becomes law, it will present the Scottish Parliament with the opportunity to make Scotland the fairest nation on earth.”

I assume that that would be an objective for the hon. Lady and her party. Why, therefore, is she dithering about giving her colleagues in the Assembly the same powers as Scotland to achieve that objective?

[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.

--- 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 ---

[Paul Flynn]

At business questions last week that was emphatically turned down by the Leader of the House. I hope that we can have a sensible discussion on that. It has been a huge success in the Welsh Assembly itself, where the language is used quite freely and in a very relaxed way. That is greatly to the benefit of Wales.

My main point about the Bill is about the level set in clause 36, which will act as a great restriction on Wales’s progress in using the greatest source of power that we have. It has long been neglected, yet it is like our North sea oil—it is that great cliff of water that comes up the Bristol channel twice a day. It is a source of immense power. It is entirely predictable, unlike wind or solar power—we know when it is going to happen—and it can be tapped in so many ways.

To our credit, we have already used that source in hydropower. But under the scheme in the Bill, even the hydropower station at Ffestiniog would be too big for the Welsh Assembly to authorise, at 360 MW. The one at Rheidol would have been fine, but Dinorwig would be too big at 1,800 MW. Those stations are a wonderful way of using that power. They are entirely demand responsive. The excess electricity can be used in off-peak hours to pump the water up to certain levels and then bring it back down again.

The greatest chance Wales has to produce power that is entirely non-carbon is through using the tides. Where would we be under the restriction in the Bill? The Swansea bay lagoon would be just within the 350 MW limit. But the Newport lagoons—both start at the River Usk, then one runs in the direction of Cardiff and one the other way—are both 1,800 MW. They have enormous potential. The resource is there, and the topography is perfect.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is making some very valid points. Does he agree that the huge investment by energy companies in storage technology means that renewables could seriously take off, making them something that would be hugely beneficial to our economy in Wales?

[Paul Flynn]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

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

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

[Jonathan Edwards]

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

[Hywel Williams]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). Even though I did not agree with a great deal of his speech, I congratulate him on the passion for and commitment to Wales that we are accustomed to hearing from him.

I both congratulate and sympathise with the Secretary of State and his Minister. It is never easy taking over a Bill that was started by a previous Secretary of State, but he has brought this forward, and I congratulate him on doing so. I sympathise with him because, as many will now know, many Members within his ranks are very unhappy with the Bill as it stands. In fact, with 11 Members from Wales, and taking the two Ministers out of the scenario, the majority of Welsh Conservative MPs are unhappy with the Bill.

This is an important Bill, but so far today we have seen most of these green Benches empty. Members who have spoken have done so with great passion and great commitment to Wales, but we have had a lot of green shown to us today and not many Members from throughout Great Britain and across the House joining us. That is very disappointing.

The Bill comes at a crucial time for our home nation. The Welsh economy is now chugging back into life after a protracted stall since 2008. Businesses are hiring again, the unemployment rate is falling, and our GDP is beginning to rise. The historic Cardiff city deal introduced by this Government that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) does so much to champion is bringing great infrastructure and further job prospects to south Wales. That will have a knock-on effect on many hon. Members’ constituencies, including my own, boosting our local economies.

This is also a crucial time for Wales because it is so soon after the Welsh Assembly elections that returned no overall majority. On its own, perhaps that result does not have a great knock-on effect on uncertainty in the Welsh economy, but coupling it with the EU referendum, whichever way the vote goes, makes for an uncertain time for Wales. It is imperative that we do all we can to make Wales strong and resilient for the future. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I do not want Wales to be the weak link in the United Kingdom chain. I think that we can all agree on that, as we all want Wales to be a strong, successful player in the United Kingdom.

Some Members might be surprised to hear that I am not opposed to the overall concept of further devolution in trying to achieve that goal. I agree with the Government that power should be held as close to the people as possible, which is why I believe that some parts of previous Wales Acts need to be tidied up. I also agree that the Welsh Assembly needs to be more accountable to the people of Wales. We should stick to our manifesto pledge to deliver the Wales Bill that I and other Conservative Members were elected to deliver by the people of Wales.

That, however, is where my agreement with this Bill wanes. I cannot stand idly by my principles and accept the Bill in its current form. I am disappointed about the timing of the Bill, its application and much of its substance. I want a Wales that can decide its own destiny and has control over its future, but most of all I want a Wales that plays a key part in, and remains a strong part of, a United Kingdom. The only way we can achieve those goals is through a devolved settlement that the people of Wales actually want and accept—a settlement that will hold long into the future.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points based on his principles as a politician. Does that mean that he will vote against the Bill?

[Chris Davies]

I thank my parliamentary neighbour for his intervention. As far as I am aware, there will be no vote this evening, but I shall scrutinise the Bill exceptionally closely over the next two or three days and I will table amendments.

We as politicians should never assume that we know exactly what the people of Wales want. On matters as important as this settlement and the Bill, which will affect me, my children and my children’s children long into the future, we cannot afford to get it wrong. That is why the devolution settlement should, above all, have accountability and democracy at its very core and as its foundations. Without such strong pillars on which to build our settlement, we cannot expect our structure to hold. As we have seen recently in Scotland, we could come dangerously close to a total collapse if it is not right.

Does the Bill uphold what I suggest, with little dispute, to be the settlement that Wales wants and needs? First, I want to consider the timing of the Bill. Government Front Benchers will no doubt be aware that the Welsh Affairs Committee looked long and hard at the draft Wales Bill. Many hours over many months were dedicated to studying its detail, and I was very pleased to be part of that Committee and grateful for the time we were allocated.

Although it appears that we were given plenty of time to look at the particulars of the draft Bill, the Bill in front of us today includes important clauses that the Committee was not asked to consider. We spent hours scrutinising the draft Bill, not this Bill. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who used to work at the Wales Office, and to the current Secretary of State for Wales for the evidence and assistance they gave our Committee during our inquiry. However, we have had an about-turn on the need for a referendum on the devolution of tax-raising powers and the new commitment to allowing for the abolition of the Welsh Assembly through a referendum squeezing their way into the Bill, so it was disappointing that the Committee was not given the chance to look in depth at those issues, which underline the whole Bill and will have enormous consequences for the people of Wales. Many members of the Committee would, I am sure, have welcomed more time to look into those important changes to the constitution of Welsh devolution, but we have been denied that chance by the apparent rushed introduction of the Bill.

On the substance of the devolution settlement, it was while looking over the draft Bill that I felt the most sympathy for one of the Welsh Affairs Committee’s witnesses—I do not usually feel sympathy for him—namely Professor Richard Wyn Jones, who told us that

“to read this Bill, you have to have a copy of the 2006 Act, and a towel doused in cold water wrapped around your head, and you have to compare the two pieces of legislation. As a constitution for Wales, this isn’t user friendly.”

Nevertheless I, like many in this Chamber, persevered, and I have found many surprises. First, I was struck by proposed new section 92A(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, on the very first page of the Bill before us—I do not propose to go through each clause—which says:

“the Welsh Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales voting in a referendum.”

I was heartened because I believed that there would be true democracy in the Bill, with the people being given the chance to abolish the Assembly if they so wish. I was therefore very encouraged, only to find, when I turned the page, that there was no instruction in the Bill about how that referendum would be triggered—I found only the next clause. I had hoped that the foundations of accountability and democracy were to be upheld, but that seems to be missing. Why not state in the Bill that the referendum could be triggered by a petition of the people?

When I looked at the will of the people, as expressed in the recent Assembly elections, I found that the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party had achieved a decent share of the vote—4.5%, in fact—from a standing start. I have been approached by people saying they would have lent that party their vote if they had believed that it would have made those of us in Westminster sit up and listen. While I neither support nor dispute the aims of that party, it shows that there is an appetite for political engagement in Wales, so the Government should do what they can to support that. I was sorry not to see that reflected in the Bill, and I believe that the provision falls disappointingly short of providing the key democratic pillar on which the settlement should be built.

Secondly, I want to touch on the application of the devolved settlement. Last night, I sat up in bed with the Wales Bill by my side and a copy of our manifesto open at pages 70 and 71. I am sure that everybody in the Chamber will know what was on those pages, but I remind them that it was the section on Wales’s devolution settlement. With my highlighter, I was ready to mark out each commitment that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I stood on to gain election to the House. I went through each point: introducing a Wales Bill—check; implementing much of the Silk report—check; devolving control over the Assembly’s name—check; reserving police and justice matters—check; introducing a funding floor for the Welsh Government once it has called a referendum on tax-raising powers—ah! I was ready and waiting with my highlighter, my eyes scanning swiftly across the Bill and my hands turning the pages, eagerly waiting to find the commitment that I had mentioned so many times on the doorstep. Clause 13 went by, as did clauses 14 and 15, and then it hit me—clause 16. I checked our manifesto and checked the Bill again, and there it was in black and white: a commitment to give the Welsh Assembly tax-raising powers without a referendum. It was a further disappointment to find that the pillar of democracy on which I believe our settlement should be built was missing from this Bill.

In his op-ed on the Bill on the day of its First Reading, the Secretary of State himself said:

“Welsh men and women want sensible legislation that reflects their priorities and allows them to live under laws of their own choosing.”

Why will the Welsh people not get to choose the legislation under which they want to live? Why is the Welsh people’s voice being silenced on this issue? Why are the Welsh people being denied a say? Might referendums really be going out of fashion? Surely the whole idea of devolution was to move power out of Whitehall and closer to the people when they wanted it. I fully agree with that. Many political pundits have said that Cardiff Bay is the most centralising Government in Europe, and my constituents quite often feel that Cardiff Bay is far more remote than Westminster. Why have powers been moved from one Government to another when our constituents are either missing out altogether or being doubly burdened?

Finally—I am sure you are glad that I am coming to a close, Madam Deputy Speaker—I must stress that I am not in principle against the devolution of further powers to any Assembly, mayor, local authority or Government, and I want to put that clearly on record. I have absolutely no problem with the devolution of powers. In fact, I often think of devolution as a good thing, where it works. My concern in this case is about the Welsh Assembly’s ability to take on the extra powers outlined in the Bill and to utilise them in a competent and constructive way, particularly at this time of no overall majority.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) spoke eloquently about the devolution of wind energy provision, and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), said that he was scaremongering. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the prospect of having more pylons in Brecon and Radnorshire is scaring my constituents and is a serious worry, but I believe the Welsh Assembly will take it lightly.

Let us take some further examples. The first is health. The Labour-run Welsh Assembly Government have so far presided over a fall in real-terms spending on the NHS in Wales. Waiting times are through the roof, and some people are reregistering in England just so that they can be seen by a doctor within a reasonable timeframe. Ambulance and A&E targets are constantly missed, and there has been no implementation of a cancer drugs fund to save lives.

The second example is education. Standards in our Welsh schools are slipping under the Welsh Assembly Government while those in England rise. Schools in my area are closing due to cuts in local government settlements by the Welsh Assembly and its outright rejection of the excellent academies programme that is being rolled out across England. That makes no sense at all to me.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The points that the hon. Gentleman raises are about Government decisions, as opposed to decisions on devolution.

The hon. Gentleman accused me of accusing the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) of scaremongering. I did not say that, but perhaps he might be willing to inform us of how many projects in Powys have been above the 50 MW level.

[Chris Davies]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a historical interpretation. I use the phrase “home rule” in the context of the historic battles for, and crusade towards, self-government in Wales, evoking the memories of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) about marching with his banner, the Cymru Fydd and his references to the Welsh Parliamentary Party. I think the term resonates with people, if not the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas). I do not think we are arguing against each other; I think we probably aspire to the same objective. We are dancing on the head of the proverbial pin.

I do have one big concern. In the past few months, the previous Bill was kicked into the proverbial long grass or cul-de-sac. I commend the Secretary of State and his officials for their alacrity and speed—it took us all by surprise that we would be here today—in ensuring that the Bill is now before us, and I thank him and his officials for the opportunity to informally raise concerns and ask questions directly in the past few days. Notwithstanding that, there are aspects of the Bill that should not be rushed. There has been some concern expressed about that speed. It is fundamentally important that the new Bill is given sufficient opportunity to be properly scrutinised. I hope officials will be thorough in their consultation and discussions with civil society, political parties and the Welsh Government to ensure that we have a workable Bill which retains and builds on widespread support.

I was privileged to take part in the St David’s Day discussions. Looking around the House, I think I am the only other person here who was in the room having those discussions with the other representatives: the former Plaid Cymru leader, the right hon. Elfyn Llwyd, the former Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). I well remember the first meeting. I reminded the Secretary of State that I would be discussing our meetings with my colleagues in Cardiff Bay, and that our discussions—the four of us sitting in isolation around that familiar big table in the big office in Gwydyr House—should not be seen in isolation. I have to say that I do not believe those discussions were as inclusive as they should have been. Cross-party and cross-parliamentary collaboration will be the key to the Bill succeeding as discussions proceed if the durable, permanent settlement we wish to see is to be secured.

Were the St David’s day talks an attempt to move the agenda on? Yes they were, and indeed they have moved the agenda on. Inevitably, however, allowing a veto from any one of the four participants risked stopping discussions in their tracks. That was how it was. We went through every one of the Silk commission’s recommendations, item by item: hands up boys if you agree, hands down if you do not. If one person objected, the issue was not pursued. When people talk about the advancement of the debate by the lowest common denominator, they are correct: it was very, very easy to stop aspects of the Silk recommendations. I say that as someone whose party was one of the first—my friends in Plaid Cymru might have been there just before us—to endorse all that Silk said in his second report.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Will the hon. Gentleman spill the beans today and tell us who the biggest culprits were in raising their hands?

[Mr Williams]

The hon. Gentleman, who is my parliamentary neighbour, will not expect me to answer that question. I suspect his sources in Plaid Cymru have given him the answer to that question already. Despite the best intentions, the structure was going to fail from the outset.

Now, to the Bill. To start at the beginning, it is welcome although not surprising that clause 1 recognises the permanence of the National Assembly. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has told us that the detail of a referendum to abolish the Assembly is not there, and I am pleased about that, but it does establish the principle that the only way we could ever abolish the National Assembly would be through the consent of the Welsh people as expressed in a referendum.

The recent National Assembly elections were not—this will come as no surprise—a stunning success for my party, but they were even less stunning for the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party. Whatever our concerns, and perhaps with just one or two exceptions, there is a recognition that our Assembly is here to stay. Importantly, clause 1 provides for a new and specific recognition of Welsh law:

“There is a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers.”

It is the first time that such recognition has existed, and it is of course welcome, but it must not end there. If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire were tempted to divide the House later and vote against the Government, the Government Front-Bench team can have some assurance that I would be likely to go through the Lobby with them— but with significant caveats and provisos. I do not know how much power solitary Liberal Democrats have these days—perhaps more than the hon. Gentleman thinks in an Assembly context. I will support the Bill at this point, but with the proviso that certain things must change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

Had the hon. Gentleman been here during last night’s debate, he would know that I support the devolution of policing because of what has happened to the police helicopter service in Dyfed-Powys. It has been lost because policing is a reserved power. The helicopter services were not lost in Scotland or Northern Ireland, but the service has been lost in Dyfed-Powys because policing is reserved, and we now have a pooled service that is letting my communities down and letting his communities down.

[Simon Hart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). I do not always agree with everything he says, but what he says, he says with substance, and is well thought out. I enjoyed his reference to James Griffiths, who is a proud son of Ammanford, which is my home town as well, so I will make sure that the South Wales Guardian reports his comments.

At the start of my contribution, I would like to raise an issue relating to the programme motion, which will be taken after these proceedings. There will be no debate on the programme motion, but when the Under-Secretary makes his winding-up speech, will he clarify the time allocated for the Bill’s Committee stage? In our view, two days will not be enough—the Scotland Bill had four days’ deliberation—but if the Under-Secretary is able to give guarantees that that time will be protected, we will be willing to concede on that. Will he also give an outline of the likely timetable for the Bill as it proceeds through its various stages?

We have heard some fantastic contributions to the debate from Members on both sides of the House. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), in which he made a passionate case for the full devolution of corporation tax. I fear that my comments will be tame in comparison. I made similar comments in the Western Mail on Saturday while I was out in Bordeaux, only to be accused by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales of nationalist dogma. The hon. Member for Islwyn, who is not in the Chamber, might be in trouble with the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) after this debate.

After less than two decades of devolution in Wales, we have had to change the settlement four times—this Bill will be the fifth time. Every one of those changes was meant to settle the constitutional question for a generation, yet here we are, debating another Bill that, it is claimed, will settle the constitution for our lifetime. I fear that we yet again have another tinkering Bill which will be past its sell-by date before the ink dries. During the course of the previous Bill, Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, endeavoured to strengthen it, as we will do during the course of this Bill. I am glad to see that some of our amendments, which were ruthlessly voted down last time, are reflected in provisions in this Bill, specifically the parts that allow the National Assembly to determine its own electoral system and give the National Assembly the right to change its name if it chooses. Surely since the last Assembly election, when one party had 50% of the seats on 30% of the vote, every true democrat must realise that we have to do something about the electoral system for the National Assembly.

On the question of the name, as far as I am concerned, now that the National Assembly can pass laws, it is a Parliament in its own right. However, I accept the arguments of some of my colleagues back home in the motherland that law-making bodies in Europe are known as assemblies, such as the Assemblée nationale in France.

I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s decision in the autumn statement to remove the need for a further referendum before the proposed income tax-setting arrangement is implemented. Referendums should be held only on a fundamental point of principle, as with next week’s vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union. Conversely, the 2011 Welsh referendum on a very opaque matter indicates the problems associated with holding a public vote on technical issues.

The principle of fiscal devolution from Westminster to Wales has already been conceded in the 2014 Act, with the devolution of minor taxes, stamp duty land tax, the aggregates levy and landfill tax. Devolution of power is the settled will of the people of Wales, as is highlighted by a long list of opinion polls. Political parties just need to get on with it now and react to the growing demand for more powers for Wales, as opposed to hiding behind referendums. The only future referendum that should be held on the constitutional question in Wales is the referendum on Welsh independence, when the time comes.

The Bill is a step forward from the draft Bill, which was published last year by the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). That Bill included roll-back powers, which would have been completely unacceptable to Plaid Cymru, because they undermined the settlement overwhelmingly endorsed in the 2011 referendum.

Three new reservations have been added, including the Severn crossings. We will be pushing an amendment to repatriate the bridges during the Bill’s later stages and look forward to the support of Labour and Conservative Members. It is allegedly Labour Government policy in Wales that the bridges should come under the control of the Welsh Government. It is also the policy of the Conservatives in the National Assembly. In 2013, their transport spokesman said:

“Devolution of the crossings—and future use of the tolls—has the real potential to help hard-pressed motorists, provide significant investment in Welsh infrastructure and encourage economic growth”.

The hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies), who uttered those words while in the Assembly, was singing from my hymn sheet, and I am disappointed that he is not in the Chamber.

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

Which of the three ends of the Severn bridges that are in England does the hon. Gentleman feel are subject to a right to be repatriated to Wales? After all, there is a geographical reality that should be recognised.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that point, which is always used by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies)—I am glad to see him in the Chamber, as we have debated this issue many times. However, the reality is that the Severn bridges are the two main supply links into the south Wales economy, so it is clearly in the interests of the Welsh Government to have control over them.

I always endeavour to be helpful in my politics, and when I look at the rate of constitutional change in the UK, it appears that the only way the British state can possibly survive is as a confederal arrangement between its constituent parts. The only reserved matters in that scenario should be those relating to currency, the Head of State, defence, welfare and foreign affairs, although the boat on welfare may have started sailing with the Scotland Act.

The necessity tests have been replaced by so-called justice impact assessments. In response to the Bill, my former academic master, Richard Wyn Jones, from the Welsh Governance Centre, said in the Western Mail:

“I’m afraid this unexpected addition to the Bill suggests the mindset that devised the necessity test is still alive and kicking in Whitehall.”

He went on to say:

“It clearly undermines the UK Government’s claim to respect the National Assembly as a mature democratic institution able to make its own laws without interference.”

He concluded by saying:

“Ultimately the Secretary of State would be able to override a piece of legislation passed by the democratically elected Assembly. It is a mindset which sees the Assembly as a second-class legislature. There is no similar provision at the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Parliament.”

[Alun Cairns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I will refer to the Secretary of State’s earlier points and let him intervene following that.

Professor Jones makes the further valid point that these impact assessments are not reciprocal, citing the example of the super-prison in Wrexham, where the UK Government took no account of the impact on devolved Welsh public services such as health, social services, education, lifelong learning and skills.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments during the debate and the guarantee that the justice impact assessments cannot trigger a UK veto—I accept him at his word. However, we will have to take our own legal advice to ensure that these assessments are not a Trojan horse to stymie the ability of the National Assembly to function fully as a legislative body.

[Alun Cairns]

Let me politely reassure the hon. Gentleman that the justice impact assessments are in absolutely no way considered to be a veto. He referred to the prison in Wrexham—HMP Berwyn. When two mature institutions come to agreements, and one is seeking to encroach on devolved areas or another to encroach on an area that is non-devolved within the UK, the UK Government need a legislative consent motion to take action in Wales. There is a mature arrangement. We need to come to a position where we understand each other, and these mature discussions should take place, rather than one having a right over the other. That is not the area that I want to get to.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention by the Secretary of State. His point about the Wrexham super-prison makes our argument for us. That facility has not been created to deal with the custodial needs and requirements of our country. That is partly why we will aim to remove the reservation on policing and prison services during the passage of the Bill.

My other major concern, as my party’s Treasury spokesperson, is the second-class settlement we are being offered in relation to fiscal powers. The Scotland Act 2016, which all Labour and Tory MPs based in Wales voted for, fully devolved air passenger duty and income tax—including, crucially, the tax bands and half of VAT receipts—to Scotland. The Scottish Government will now be responsible for raising over the half the money they use in all devolved expenditure. Yet, as the recent Cardiff University assessment, “Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales 2016”, notes, following the fiscal plans in this Bill, the Welsh Government will be responsible for raising only about 20% of the devolved expenditure for which they are responsible.

If the twin arguments for fiscal devolution are accountability and incentivisation, surely we need more ambition for Wales than what is currently on offer. After all, in essence, we are talking about keeping more tax revenues raised in Wales directly in Wales, as opposed to collecting them in London and sending them back. The Welsh Government should be responsible for raising the money that they spend. That is a very valuable principle in politics. We will seek to amend this Bill and the forthcoming Finance Bill to secure parity for Wales with Scotland, and challenge Labour and Conservative Members who supported these powers for Scotland on why they oppose them for Wales.

The other issue in relation to tax powers that must be addressed if the measure is to receive our support is the fiscal framework to accompany tax devolution. As we have seen with the debate surrounding the Barnett formula, words such as “fairness” and “non-detriment” are extremely opaque and open to interpretation. The Bill will put in place a Barnett floor to stop further funding convergence, but let us be clear that that is not the same as “fair”. A fair settlement would surely, at the very least, peg Welsh funding at the Scottish level, especially since that is what Labour and Tory Members of Parliament from Wales voted for for Scotland. I will let them explain to the people of Wales why they think that Wales deserves less support through public funding per head than Scotland.

Returning to the fiscal framework, I am glad that there seems to be genuine good will around a non-detriment principle, but that will need to be clearly outlined before we finally vote on the Bill. I would expect the Treasury, at the very least, to publish its recommendations in an official statement to the House during our proceedings on the Bill because Members of Parliament will otherwise be voting blind on the consequences of the tax proposals. I say this as a strong supporter of devolving job-creating levers to Wales, as I outlined earlier. However, neither I nor my colleagues will support the Bill if the UK Government intend to push a straightforward indexed deduction method. I note the significant concessions gained by the SNP Scottish Government on this issue, so I would hope that the Labour Government in Wales and the Wales Office here will be pushing hard for a suitable deduction method for Wales.

This vital issue is even more complicated than my favourite topic of Barnett consequentials, so we must get it right. We need a formula that will reflect the fact that the population of Wales, and hence our tax base, will grow more slowly than the UK average. We cannot be left in a position whereby a successful fiscal policy in Wales leaves us standing still in terms of Welsh revenues. Incentivisation can work only if the Welsh Exchequer is not at a loss before the process starts. Scotland has once again achieved a fair settlement, and so must Wales. It would be far easier to come up with a fair framework if we were debating full income tax powers similar to those awarded to Scotland—that is, full devolution of the bands and thresholds.

If the other main aim of fiscal devolution is to increase the political accountability of the Welsh Government, the sharing arrangement envisaged for income tax would continue to allow them to pass the buck. The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), said that full devolution of income tax powers under the Scotland Act would stop the Scottish Government playing the politics of grievance. If Wales has a sharing arrangement, the politics of grievance will continue. In the interests of accountability, incentivisation and, critically, transparency, the UK Government need to revise their plans and fully devolve income tax powers to Wales.

This March, in an act of blatant electioneering, the previous Welsh Labour Government published an alternative Wales Bill that called for a separate legal system for Wales and the devolution of policing. I look forward to the Labour Opposition here tabling such amendments to the Bill. If they do, I will support them with vigour, but if they do not, Plaid Cymru will do so and the people of Wales will be able to judge for themselves whether the First Minister has any influence over his bosses here in Westminster.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the policy areas devolved to Scotland that are not included in this Bill, which include legal jurisdiction, policing, prisons, probation, criminal justice, full income tax, VAT sharing arrangements, air passenger duty, welfare and employment, consumer advocacy and advice, gaming mechanisms, full energy powers and rail franchising of passenger services, to name but a few. As I have said before, it will be up to our political opponents to explain why they voted for those powers for Scotland, but are opposed to them for Wales.

That brings me to the forthcoming parliamentary boundary review, which has not been mentioned at all during the debate, but will reduce Welsh representation in this place to 29 Members. That means a loss of more than a quarter of Welsh seats in the House of Commons.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman has drawn up a long wish list of things that he wants to be properly devolved. What is the difference between that list and independence?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am extremely surprised by that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman voted for those powers for Scotland. Is he now saying that he voted for Scottish independence? That is incredible.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman and I are good friends. He is a fine cricketer, but he is also a naughty boy. Will he just answer the question?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I will take that intervention in the spirit in which it was intended. Those powers now reside in the Scottish Parliament, so is the hon. Gentleman saying that Scotland is independent? That is ridiculous. I am sure that the good people of Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire will be delighted to hear that he is in favour of full Scottish and Welsh independence.

[Albert Owen]

Earlier the hon. Gentleman referred to something similar to what I believe in, which is a confederal system in the UK. Is he now advocating that and not independence? Is that his party’s line?

[Jonathan Edwards]

As I said when I made those remarks, I always try to be helpful in my politics. My party’s position is independence for my country—

[Albert Owen]

Say it.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I have made that clear in my contribution. However, if I was a Unionist such as the hon. Gentleman, I would make exactly the same argument as him, and I commend him for it.

Before I was rudely interrupted by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), I was talking about the boundary review. Wales is about to lose more than a quarter of our political representation. To put that in context, Wales will experience the largest proportional cut in representation here while simultaneously being denied powers and responsibility for our devolved Government. If the boundary changes go through without our significantly equalising the Welsh settlement with that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, there will be a further democratic deficit. With that in mind, I will vote against the boundary changes unless we have the same powers as Scotland.

The constitution of the UK is rapidly changing. This is a time for bold and visionary acts in the finest traditions of this House. I am afraid that the Bill does not reflect the realities we face, nor does it respond to the practical problems that arise from tinkering with the settlement. We will endeavour to strengthen it during its passage so that our country is not treated like a second-class nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

Air passenger duty has been raised during the debate, and the fact that we are not proposing to devolve it has been criticised, although I think that that is right and proper. Silk made it clear that there is a need to devolve provisions for long-haul passengers, but there has been no consensus on that issue. I also ask what benefits such a measure would bring to north Wales in terms of the impact on the Welsh devolution financial settlement. At this time I think it is the right decision not to devolve air passenger duty, and I am happy to stand by that.

Many Members called for the list of reservations to be shorter, although it is important to point out that the list in the Scotland Act 1998 is not short either. It would, in my view, be impossible for the model of devolution that we are trying to create to have a two or three-page list; a long list will always be necessary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the aim was to secure a positive working relationship between this place and the Assembly, and I think it important to emphasise that. I believe that those reservations can be dealt with positively, and that we can work in a way that will benefit the people of Wales.

The hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and for Torfaen, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion highlighted the issue of the single legal jurisdiction. They made some positive comments about the Bill’s acknowledgement that there would be a body of Welsh law, but I think it imperative for us to understand the context of our decision.

We have consulted far and wide. We have consulted the legal profession in Wales, law colleges in Wales, legal departments in Wales and universities in Wales, and their clear response has been that it would be premature to move towards a separate legal jurisdiction. However, a working group is looking into the administrative processes involved in the development of a body of Welsh law, and I think it important that the Bill acknowledges the existence of Welsh legislation. We must try to develop a distinctive way of operating the administrative side of the legal system in Wales, rather than concentrating on the issue of a separate legal jurisdiction.

Some Members raised concerns about the justice impact assessments. I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear that the aim was not to prevent the Assembly from legislating, but to ensure that the impact of legislation was understood. The Welsh Assembly is already committed to looking at the impact of its legislation on the Welsh language and on equality issues, and I see nothing wrong with requiring it to look at the justice impact assessments as well. That, I think, is a proportionate request. It is a request that is acceded to by Westminster Departments when they legislate, and I think that it treats the Assembly as a mature body which is not only able to create law, but to understand the consequences of the development of that law.

I believe that when the aim of the Bill is clarified in Committee—if there is a need for such clarification—Members on both sides of the House will be assured that the justice impact assessment is not a necessity test. I should add that the article by Professor Richard Wyn Jones, which was quoted by numerous Members, showed a lack of understanding of the aims of the assessment, and, indeed, of who would be responsible for delivering and creating it. The responsibility will be passed on to the Assembly. It will be for the Assembly to develop justice impact assessments; there will be no dictation from Westminster.

Income tax is clearly a real issue for Conservative Members. In a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire expressed his concern about the changes, and the issue was also touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). It has been suggested that the decision to omit the need for a referendum was in some way a betrayal of a manifesto commitment, but I take issue with that. There appear to be two versions of the Conservative manifesto, the Welsh version and the national version. Page 58 of the Welsh version, which I read, made clear that the promise could be questioned, because once a funding floor had been established, and we have delivered that funding floor, there would be an expectation—an expectation—that the Welsh Government would hold a referendum.

In my view, it is clear that the Welsh Government are prevaricating on whether they want income tax powers. I think it is absolutely clear to Conservative Members that provision for a tax settlement is essential, because the Bill is about clarity, accountability and responsibility for the Welsh Government. Yes, more powers are being devolved, but it is nevertheless essential for a degree of accountability to be passed on to the Welsh Government. I would argue that that accountability, which is understood by local councils and parish councils and by police and crime commissioners, is essential for good governance in Wales and for the Welsh Assembly. I would question whether this is indeed a breach of a manifesto commitment, but more importantly I would say the decision is justified in order to have a settlement which ensures that the people of Wales know that the Welsh Government and Assembly are responsible not just for spending in Wales but also for raising tax in Wales.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Does the Minister not therefore agree that it would be far easier to achieve those aims of accountability, incentivisation and clarity if 100% of income tax powers were devolved, as well as achieving the non-detrimental fiscal framework which is key to underpinning the devolution of that tax?

[Guto Bebb]

Once again the hon. Gentleman is putting ideology ahead of practicality. There is a significant difference between the population that lies along the Welsh border with England and the population on the border with Scotland. We have to move very carefully. This is a proportionate settlement that ensures there is a degree of tax accountability. He is possibly pushing his luck on this, because that ideology is not supported by the people of Wales.

We are moving in the right direction. This Government have achieved a funding floor, whereby we guarantee that spending in Wales will never be less than 115% of spending in England. That guarantee was not forthcoming for 13 years of a Labour Government here in Westminster, and it has now been offered by this Government.