Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I will come back to the hon. Member, but I want to finish my point.

I would remind Members that the whole debate around a separate legal jurisdiction came as a consequence of the necessity test in the draft Bill. The necessity test has been removed and the consequence could be that that call and demand for a separate jurisdiction should therefore fall. However, it is almost as though it has taken on a life of its own, but I still question the purpose, because I am still trying to find out what difference a separate legal jurisdiction would make for anyone living or working in Wales, other than uncertainty for investors when the reputation of the England and Wales legal system is recognised right around the world.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

But surely the purpose of a distinct legal jurisdiction would be the quality of justice provided in Wales, and at the end of the day this is the only legislature in the world which does not have a jurisdiction. This situation is crying out to be resolved, and if not now, when?

[Alun Cairns]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to support amendment 60, which stands in my name and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues, and relates to the creation of a distinct legal jurisdiction. When the Wales Bill was re-announced in the Queen’s Speech, the Government claimed it would offer a “strong” and “lasting constitutional settlement” for Wales. The Minister has keenly told us that this settlement will last a “generation”, so it is a long-term devolution road map. But the Government’s obsessive desire to retain a 16th-century relic of a legal system has increasingly called into question the idea that this devolution settlement will last any longer than its predecessor. The former Counsel General for Wales, Theodore Huckle, QC, put it bluntly, saying:

“across the common law world the creation of new legislatures has been coupled with the formation of a distinct legal jurisdiction. But not in Wales.”

Furthermore, the Welsh Governance Centre’s “Justice in Wales” report, released this morning, stated that

“the administration of justice will require continuing reform to accommodate increasing divergence between the laws and policies of England and Wales.”

The Government’s proposed piecemeal and fragmented approach to this issue will only cause greater confusion, weaken the ability of the Welsh legal sector to operate effectively and create the need for constant “tweaking” by the Government, as we have been discussing today. Surely the Minister can see it is only logical that if he truly wants a lasting devolution settlement for the people of Wales, as I do, the Bill must recognise the need for a distinct Welsh legal jurisdiction.

Despite the logic in a move to put Wales on the same footing as Scotland and Northern Ireland by giving us our own separate legal jurisdiction, we recognise the Government’s concerns and want to work constructively with them.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In the hon. Lady’s last few sentences, she went from talking about a distinct legal jurisdiction to discussing a separate one. On a distinct legal jurisdiction, I certainly agree that there will be an emerging body of Welsh law. But if a separate legal jurisdiction were to be introduced, how would that not increase barriers to access to justice, given that on every single cross-border case—I can remember those as a barrister—there may have to be that additional requirement of serving cross-border? Surely she would not want her constituents to have to face that.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I mentioned a separate legal jurisdiction, which is what Plaid Cymru would prefer, but we are prepared in this instance, as a compromise, to work towards a distinct one, as it would not create additional costs in the court structure in Wales and would not provide a barrier for the legal profession. It is important to say that although we are presenting a compromise, Plaid Cymru has used exactly the same words as those of the alternative Wales Bill provided by the Welsh Government. I note the official Opposition’s announcement, whereby Labour in Wales has done a U-turn on this policy. We used these words very much with it in mind that we were trying to develop a spirit of compromise and agreement, as in Wales it was felt that this was necessary. When I address the official Opposition, I am genuinely curious to know who initiated this policy somersault: did it come from Welsh Labour or London Labour? We worked with a spirit of compromise in mind.

For this reason we are compromising and putting forward our amendment today calling for a distinct, as opposed to a separate, legal jurisdiction. A raft of leading constitutional and legal experts has outlined the cold hard facts about why a distinct Welsh legal jurisdiction needs to be created.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way again. In answer to the question, what happened is that the Bill has changed dramatically. The necessity test was all but taken out. That is what brought about the change. She is talking now about a distinct legal jurisdiction. Can she explain to us precisely what she means by that, and how exactly it would differ from the separate legal jurisdiction that I thought Plaid Cymru was advancing?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me; I thought I had explained that previously.

Our proposal will require no extra court construction. We have the structures for justice in place already. What is proposed is a dividing of those court structures, as the amendments explain. This was recommended by a number of experts in these areas, including the Silk Commission and the vast majority of witnesses to the Welsh Affairs Committee. I must admit that on the Committee we almost felt that we were seeking witnesses to give an alternative view. The vast majority spoke in favour of a distinct or separate jurisdiction.

[Mr Mark Williams]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s last comment, having served alongside her on the Welsh Affairs Committee. She mentions Paul Silk, who spoke about the need to review this matter within 10 years. The “Justice in Wales” report from the Wales Governance Centre referred to a standing commission. I think that was the view of the First Minister as well, when he announced the Bill that the hon. Lady mentioned. Given that there is an evolving picture, surely we should be monitoring it with a view to changing it in the near future? I may well share the final destination that she and her hon. Friends seek to reach, but there is a case for carrying people forward on the basis of experience over the next few years.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree that we are seeing a gradual momentum in favour of the change. As I said earlier, if not now, when? We in Plaid Cymru feel that objections, rather than any real argument, are being cast up in front of us. We know that we are travelling on a trajectory. When will we reach the end point, without hindrances being thrown in our way?

Other advocates of our approach include Sir Roderick Evans, QC, the former High Court judge and pro-chancellor of Swansea University, barrister Rhodri Williams, QC, and solicitor Michael Imperato—greatly respected lawyers who felt so strongly about the issue that they created the Justice for Wales group. Further supporters were the constitutional experts at the Wales Governance Centre and the UCL constitution unit. Even the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, whom I quoted in the last debate on the Bill, has spoken in favour of a distinct legal jurisdiction.

I know that many people in the Minister’s party have spent the first half of this year telling us not to listen to experts, but I implore him to do so in this instance. He should drop the political and ideological obsession with a unified Welsh and English legal jurisdiction and take heed of the clear and logical advice of so many experts on this issue. With a new constitutional settlement, an increasingly divergent statute book, and Brexit set to change the shape of the UK, it is time for the Government to recognise the facts and the need for a distinct legal jurisdiction in Wales.

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

I, too, sat through many Welsh Affairs Committee inquiries and lots of evidence from academics and legal experts on this matter. Yes, they all wanted a separate or a distinct legal jurisdiction, but the hon. Lady has not explained how it would work and, more importantly, how it would benefit the people of Wales to have a separate legal system.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, the amendment goes into detail, even in relation to the court structures and the professional structures that would be required. I argue strongly that we are travelling on this trajectory, and what is important is the quality of justice and the quality of decisions made in Wales in relation to legislation made in Wales.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) asked a pertinent question: what are the advantages to Wales? The St David’s Day agreement was about powers for a purpose. Has the hon. Lady read the fantastic article by Gwion Lewis in this month’s issue of Barn, in which he highlights the way in which the Supreme Court met in Cardiff and made a decision in relation to Welsh language education in Denbighshire, a decision which I am sure the hon. Lady would welcome? What would a distinct legal jurisdiction have decided differently in that case?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

We would argue that a distinct legal jurisdiction is needed for the quality of decisions to be made consistently. We are travelling in that direction. We need clarity on the matter. To be simple about it and not to reiterate the details that are in the amendment, the Welsh Assembly is the only legislature in the world that does not have its own jurisdiction. That in itself is a pretty clear argument.

We offer the Government a pragmatic solution to the issue that will ensure the long-term sustainability of this devolution deal for the people of Wales. Obviously, Plaid Cymru would prefer to see a clean break, with the creation of a separate legal jurisdiction, but our amendment offers a reasonable position that I hope the whole House will recognise as necessary. For this reason, I will be pressing the amendment to the vote.

On the Government and Opposition amendments, new clause 4 stops the devolution of decision-making powers over when to hold elections for police and crime commissioners in Wales. As it is another example of this Government’s shameful misunderstanding of what devolution means, we will not support this amendment if it is pressed to the vote, but we do not intend voting against it. Government amendments 3 to 8 are uncontentious and technical, and warrant no further discussion at this point.

A number of Government amendments are based on recommendations made in July by the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, Elin Jones. Plaid Cymru had tabled these amendment in earlier stages and we are pleased to see that the Secretary of State has now endorsed our position. We are disappointed, however, that the Government have failed to recognise the Presiding Officer’s recommendations concerning the legislative consent process and the restoration of the Assembly’s current ability to legislate in an “ancillary” way on exceptions from competence.

Amendments 9 to 12 give the Presiding Officer, rather than the Secretary of State, powers over when to call a Welsh general election. These amendments, based on the Presiding Officer’s recommendations, are welcomed by Plaid Cymru and will be supported. We support Government amendments 14 to 18, which make changes to the finance provisions in the Bill. These are further examples of amendments proposed by the Presiding Officer which the Government have accepted. We also support the related consequential amendments, Government amendments 30, 31, 44, 48 and 51.

Amendments 19 to 22 laid by the Government insert the Welsh names of institutions into the Bill for clarity. These amendments are not controversial. Government amendment 26, which clarifies the ability of an Assembly Act to specify the prosecutor of an offence within devolved competence, is also based on the recommendations made by the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s explanation of this clarifying amendment, which we support.

Plaid Cymru also supports Government amendments 28 and 29. Amendment 28 allows for changes to the role of the Children’s Commissioner by the Assembly. Amendment 29 removes prohibition on the ability of an Assembly Act to modify sections 145 and 145A of the Government of Wales Act 1998, relating to examinations and studies by the Auditor General for Wales—again, a change suggested by the Presiding Officer. Government amendments 32 and 34 to 36 are technical changes or remove errors in the wording of the Bill. Government amendment 33 clarifies areas in which areas UK Ministers will retain authority. Although this is a technical change, we fundamentally disagree with the principle of this section of the Bill and will, if necessary, vote against the amendment.

Government amendments 39 to 42 increase the number of devolved bodies listed in schedule 4. We are pleased that the list has expanded, but the fact that the Government has had to expand it before the Bill is even enacted illustrates what Plaid Cymru has said from the beginning—that the Bill is overly restrictive and in the long term will inevitably become unworkable.

Amendment 43, tabled by the Government, allows Orders in Council to be used to make provision for proclamations related to the timing of elections, as provided for by amendments 11 and 12. As we support amendments 11 and 12, we will also support this amendment. Government amendment 49 is a technical change relating to the understanding of Wales public authorities. This amendment is not contentious. Government amendments 52 to 57 are either consequential or technical amendments. There is no need for comment on them at this time.

In conclusion, I look forward to the Secretary of State’s response.

[Nia Griffith]

I rise to speak to new clause 3, on railways, and to amendment 2, on the community infrastructure levy.

Back in our Labour manifesto for the 2011 Assembly elections, we put forward the idea of exploring the possibility that a not-for-profit organisation should have the option to bid for the Wales and Borders rail franchise, in the same way that Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is owned by a not-for-profit organisation. Giving the Welsh Government further powers over rail transport brings decision making closer to people in Wales. Currently, the provisions of the Railways Act 1993 mean that it is not possible for a public sector body to bid for the franchise, which limits the options. Yet, ironically, a German state-owned company can operate the very same franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely that it has been very generously funded, and funded without very much review for 25-odd years until fairly recently. [Interruption.] Indeed—and then what happened? The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am aware of the genesis of S4C. Let me say clearly that I have the conviction to prove that I am very well aware of what happened during that period. I think I had better leave it at that.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that S4C’s funding has resulted in it currently running more than 50% repeats, which is not satisfactory.

[Hywel Williams]

The television landscape has certainly changed enormously. Many broadcasters are now running a great number of repeats. The point about Welsh language television is that it has a purpose beyond just providing entertainment, or even informing or educating: it is there as part of the national project to sustain, speaking in dramatic terms, the rescue of the language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a hypothetical assertion. I shall refrain from doing so, but it is important to highlight that the Silk commission considered very carefully the difference between the porous nature of the border between England and Wales and the situation in Scotland. On balance, it is my view that the Silk commission came to the right conclusion, which is why we will reject the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. The Wales Act 2014 legislated for the vast majority of the recommendations in the Silk commission’s first report, and our focus should be to work with the Welsh Government to implement it.

On new clause 8, the youth justice system, as with other elements of the criminal justice system, is not currently devolved, but significant responsibilities in relation to the management and rehabilitation of young offenders are exercised by local authorities in Wales, working in partnership with the police and devolved services such as health, children’s services and education. Devolved and non-devolved services already work successfully together in Wales to prevent youth offending, and to manage and support young offenders in the community. The Youth Justice Board provides national oversight and monitoring of those arrangements, and the Youth Justice Board Cymru has worked closely with the Welsh Government to develop a joint youth offending strategy. That establishes a coherent framework for all those involved in delivering youth justice services and ensures that there is an effective youth justice system that meets the needs of young people in Wales.

The Silk commission noted that many of the causes of youth offending relate to devolved matters, and its recommendation on devolution was aimed at promoting greater integration. However, there was no consensus in favour of devolution when youth justice was discussed as part of the St David’s Day process. The Government believe it is important that legislative competence for youth justice remains reserved to allow us to develop a consistent and coherent approach to criminal justice, and the management of offenders across all age groups, within the single legal jurisdiction. There would be significant practical challenges in devolving responsibility for youth justice in Wales while responsibility for the police, courts and other elements of the criminal justice system are reserved.

We place a high priority on addressing youth offending and maintaining a strong relationship with the Welsh Government on those matters. The Ministry of Justice is currently considering the final report of Charlie Taylor, the former chief executive of the National College of Teaching and Leadership, on his review of the youth justice system. As part of his review, he visited Wales to meet Welsh Ministers and to see local youth offending services. The Ministry of Justice will work closely with the Welsh Government to consider the recommendations made in the final report with a view to publishing the report later this year with plans for reform. Given the co-operation that exists between devolved and non-devolved organisations, which we will seek to maintain in taking forward any plans for reform, we are not persuaded that devolving youth justice to create a separate youth justice system in Wales would result in a more flexible, economical or effective response to youth offending.

New clause 9, proposed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), would open the door to the apprenticeship levy becoming a devolved tax. When introducing the apprenticeship levy, the Government wanted to make the system as simple as possible for employers to operate, and to avoid adverse impacts on the integrated UK-wide single market. Operating a UK-wide levy based on the national insurance definition of earnings is the best way to achieve this outcome. In particular, it is applied consistently to employers wherever they operate within the UK single market, while this definition of earnings is something that employers are familiar with and is information they readily have in their payroll. This also avoids considerable practical difficulties that would arise if there were different rates and thresholds of the apprenticeship levy in different parts of the UK, which appears to be the thrust of new clause 9. For example, as the charge is on the employer, it would be necessary to determine how such a system would operate for organisations working across borders. This would create additional burdens for businesses that we believe are sensibly avoided. In addition, the Government have made it quite clear that devolved nations will get their fair share of the levy, and discussions are ongoing.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I would like the Minister to answer my question in this case. There is real uncertainty about how much would go to Wales. How will there be transparency in relation to the apprenticeship levy when there will be companies with a head office in another area outside Wales with employees in Wales?

[Guto Bebb]

The aim of the negotiations between the Welsh Government and the Treasury is to ensure a fair funding formula for Wales. On transparency, I think the hon. Lady is aware that decisions on spending in Wales are decisions for the Welsh Government, so the transparency issue will arise at that point. I can assure her that the ongoing discussions between the Treasury and the Welsh Government are being conducted in the spirit of co-operation. We want the levy to succeed. Whether a young person is from Wales or England, the aim is to ensure there is support for that person’s training. We are therefore fully committed to working with the Welsh Government, but to devolve this tax would create a complexity that is unjustified in the context of the border between England and Wales, and owing to the fact that the border is so different to the situation in Scotland. That is why we think the amendment is misguided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

That is because of the wisdom of the socialist Welsh Government in taking it over—nationalising it. I am glad that the Minister draws attention to that fact—this triumph of practical socialism, which is turning out to be a success, even without the level playing field and level flying field that we need. Plaid Cymru has tabled this new clause, and we believe that devolving airport duty would allow Welsh airports to compete on a fair basis with the others. We need only to look at the geography. That tells us that the airports at Prestwick and Cardiff are disadvantaged because of the whole nature of flying and the magnetic attraction to the hubs around which the population is distributed. This measure will have to happen at some time in the future. We should acknowledge the success of the Welsh Government’s action over Cardiff airport.

On keeping the devolution of policing under review, the Minister prayed in aid the four police and crime commissioners in Wales. What he did not mention was the fact that those four PCCs are agreed on the need for the control of policing to go to the Welsh Assembly. Our new clause 11 requires the Secretary of State for Wales and his Ministers to

“keep the functioning and operation of policing in Wales under review”.

It is not asking much to suggest that we should look at it every year. This issue has been around for a long time.

Having spent a number of years sitting on the Home Affairs Committee, I would like to see some police forces kept at some distance from the Welsh police forces. I refer to some in Yorkshire and the Met, about which I have some misgivings relating to incidents involving some of my constituents and indeed constituents of my hon. Friends. I believe that there is a tradition of ethical policing in Wales that has its own values and it would be beneficial to keep possibilities in place and under review. We should keep the light shining in the distance as we move towards it.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree with me on this issue. I took part in the parliamentary policing scheme this summer, and I know that there are great concerns among the North Wales police about the drive for them to co-operate with forces over the border. Although that might make sense in terms of combating crime, it will actually result in fewer police officers in many areas of Wales. Our police forces are really concerned about that.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, which we should bear in mind. I believe that we should appreciate and build on the Welsh tradition of policing. The cause is a modest one. We are not asking for full independence of the Welsh police forces straight away, but that is the mood within the police force. The new clause does not call for an immediate devolution of policing, but would allow policing—and particularly the devolution of policing—to be kept under review by both the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. The people of Wales should have a greater say over policing, and plans for it should be drawn up by the Welsh Assembly.

The first draft Wales Bill was an affront to devolution. The Welsh Government published an alternative Bill, in which they set out plans for a 10-year strategy for the devolution of policing. I hope that that is not too fast a pace for the Government, but we are not rushing into this. Ours is a modest, sensible approach which the Government should accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to speak to new clauses 8 and 9, in my name and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues. These provisions aim to guarantee the devolution of the youth justice system and the funds generated by the apprenticeship levy respectively. I will first discuss new clause 8.

Continuing with the ineffective and complex mix of devolved and non-devolved bodies to manage our youth justice system is not congruent with the Government’s promise of a clear devolution settlement for Wales. The illogical settlement of the current system was highlighted by former Youth Justice Board chair Professor Rod Morgan, and reiterated by the Silk commission, which found that

“factors linked to youth offending were often related to devolved services, such as education and training, social services, and health, while youth offenders were dealt with through non-devolved services, such as the police, Youth Offending Teams and youth courts.”

The 61 youth offenders currently in custody in Wales could receive significantly better treatment as a result of a simple change in the Bill. Equally, youth offenders in north Wales, who are, as a matter of course, sent over the border because of a lack of provision in the region, would be much better served by a devolved system. Why does the Minister, therefore, wish to retain the current unwieldy and unclear system when the evident priority should be to rehabilitate these children and young people?

As with every Plaid Cymru amendment brought forward, this is not a matter of politics, but common sense. Independent experts—independent experts, once again—are lining up to tell the Minister why he should devolve youth justice. I have already mentioned the Silk commission and Professor Rod Morgan, but the list goes on. Wales’s second Children’s Commissioner, Keith Towler, stated quite clearly that devolution responsibility over youth justice would make a massive difference in the way young people caught up in the justice system are supported, and it might even help cut crime. Leading legal academic, Richard Owen, has undertaken research to show the huge potential benefits of devolving youth justice.

However, perhaps the strongest statement came from the Howard League for Penal Reform, which has campaigned on the issue of youth justice for many years. When it found out that Plaid Cymru was putting forward this new clause, it wrote to me directly saying:

“When it comes to Welsh children in trouble with the law, Wales should be able to come up with a Welsh solution to a Welsh concern. This is particularly the case because both social services and education policy are already devolved and it is a welfare-led approach which will prove most effective for troubled children.”

The Youth Justice Board in Wales already recognises that in its children-first approach, and there is an opportunity to build on that distinctiveness and to protect it from any Westminster-led reforms that fail to take into account the specific needs of Welsh children. Why do the Secretary of State and the Government continue to fail to listen to these independent experts?

The indications are that the Government’s upcoming report into youth justice, undertaken by Charlie Taylor, the former chief executive of the National College for Teaching and Leadership, is likely to come out in favour of further devolution. Why not, therefore, use the biggest legislative vehicle for devolution in Wales for years to remove youth justice from the reservations now? I anticipate that this matter, like many matters relating to justice, will be discussed here once again and without delay when that report is published later this year.

The Government have already said that they are looking to devolve aspects of youth justice to other areas of the UK. Can the Minister explain to the people of Wales why such authorities as the Greater Manchester combined authority are set to gain increased competence over youth justice, when the established National Assembly for Wales, with a track record on closely related issues, is not? Is he not standing up for Wales among his Tory Cabinet colleagues?

The relatively insignificant £300,000 cost the Government estimate would be involved in setting up a Welsh youth justice system would pale into insignificance compared with the positive outcomes for young people caught up in the criminal justice system. Financial savings might even be made if, as predicted by many experts, offending rates decrease following its devolution. The benefits for the UK Government and the Welsh Government are clear. This is not only a morally responsible policy, but a logical and financially sensible thing to do. Although we will not push the new clause to a vote, will the Minister please outline why he is not listening to the Silk commission and the plethora of experts urging him to devolve youth justice?

New clause 9 relates to the devolution of the funds generated through the apprenticeship levy. The Government’s chaotic and haphazard approach to the apprenticeship levy has left all the devolved Administrations in confusion. While the specifics are clear for businesses in England, the way in which businesses, public organisations, colleges and training providers in Wales will be able to access and benefit from the moneys generated by the levy remains completely opaque. Plaid Cymru has a long-standing commitment to improving the standard and increasing the number of apprenticeships in Wales. With every other area of apprenticeships, skills and training already devolved, it is incomprehensible that the Government have chosen to impose this as a blanket policy across the UK. Beyond the issues I have outlined as a matter of principle, an unacceptable number of questions remain unanswered. How will the levy work in relation to companies that employ people across the border? How will Wales receive the money owed to it through the levy, and how will we know that it is a fair allocation? Although we do not wish to press the new clause to a vote, we are asking for a clear commitment from the Secretary of State to ensure that Wales gets its fair and transparent share of the receipts generated by the apprenticeship levy.

I now turn to amendments tabled by the Government and Opposition Front Benchers. The Government’s new clause 5 is based on the premise of giving Welsh Ministers power to demarcate safety zones around renewable energy installations in Welsh waters and prohibit activities within such safety zones. That does indeed seem empowering. Unfortunately, however, it further highlights the senseless limit of 350 MW capacity on renewable energy projects, to which we are fundamentally opposed. Amendment 45 and its consequential amendment 47 remind us again of this limit. We welcome new clause 1, tabled by the official Opposition, which would amend the Coastguard Act 1925 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 so as to require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers in relation to the activities of the coastguard in Wales.

New clause 11 relates to keeping the devolution of policing to Wales under review. I could say much, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), I have discussed these matters so many times in this Chamber that I feel it does not need to hear me reiterate them. I am glad that there is consistency in Plaid Cymru’s argument and that Labour is perhaps moving in the right direction.

Amendments 70 to 82 attempt to increase the limit on the Welsh Government’s legislative competence in the field of energy from 350 MW to 2,000 MW. That would of course be welcome. However, why do the official Opposition still believe that we must put an arbitrary limit on the Welsh Government’s powers at all when there is no such limit on the powers of the Scottish Government? I was pleased that for once the official Opposition supported our amendment in Committee to remove the limit altogether, so I am disappointed that in these amendments they appear to have rowed back on their support for allowing Welsh natural resources to be in the hands of the people of Wales.

I would greatly appreciate from the Minister clarification of amendment 50, which relates to the negative resolution procedure for Welsh Ministers under the Energy Act 2004, as that is not particularly clear as it stands.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Rail: franchising of passenger services

“(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (public sector operators not to be franchisees) is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of subsection (2A) insert “or a franchise agreement in respect of services that are or include Wales-only services.”

(3) After subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) For the purposes of this section a “Wales-only service” has the same meaning as in section 57 of the Railways Act 2005.”

(4) This section does not have effect in relation to any invitation to tender under section 26(2) of the Railways Act 1993 issued before the day on which this section comes into force.”—(Paul Flynn.)

This new clause would remove a restriction in section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 on certain public sector bodies bidding to operate a rail franchise that is made up of or includes rail services within Wales.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.