Wales Bill

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

That will a matter for the Welsh Government. I am seeking to give them absolute freedom over local elections, within the limitations in the Bill, but it is not right that any changes they bring about—which may well change the franchise, if they believe that to be appropriate—should have consequences for PCC elections, for which the Welsh Government do not have responsibility as they are reserved under the Bill.

The new clause also makes consequential changes to the provisions in the 2011 Act for giving notice of a vacancy in the office of the police and crime commissioner and the provisions on the eligibility of candidates.

Amendment 27 is the second technical amendment in the group. It removes the reference to section 14(1)(f) of the Planning Act 2008 from the definition of “relevant nationally significant infrastructure project” in the planning reservation. That section applies only to England so the reference to it in the Bill is superfluous.

Amendments 33, 49, 52, 55 and 57 are all also technical and address an issue with the numerous references to the legislative competence of the Assembly across the statute book. Since devolution began, Acts of Parliament have often sought to define policies by reference to the devolution boundary involving expressions such as

“the legislative competence of the Assembly”.

For example, a power to make subordinate legislation could be conferred on the Secretary of State for provisions that are not within the legislative competence of the Assembly where the provisions are within such competence. In determining for the purposes of UK Acts what is and is not within the Assembly’s competence, proposed new section 108A and proposed schedules 7A and 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 set out the relevant tests. However, provisions such as paragraphs (8) to (11) of schedule 7B include a consent mechanism whereby a provision will be within competence only if the consent of a UK Minister has been given.

Those consent mechanisms exist so that there is an appropriate role for UK Ministers in relation to Assembly legislation that affects reserved authorities—I underline that that means reserved authorities only. However, that requirement for consent is not appropriate when considering UK legislation. For that reason, amendment 33 disapplies any requirement for a UK Minister’s consent when the legislative competence of the Assembly is being interpreted in the context of UK Parliament legislation.

Amendments 49, 52, 55 and 57 ensure that, where Acts of the UK Parliament refer to the Welsh devolution boundary, they do so in accordance with the new reserved powers model as inserted by the Bill. Those are sensible and practical technical changes to ensure that the new reserved powers model of devolution is interpreted and applied consistently in respect of all UK legislation.

The next amendments resulted from ongoing discussions with the Welsh Government, the Assembly’s Presiding Officer and the Assembly Commission.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Before the Secretary of State moves on, I want to ask about the reserved powers model. He has mentioned the consistency of interpretation throughout the Bill, which is to be welcomed, but it would be useful if he could give at the Dispatch Box the commitment that it is the desire of the UK Government not to be going to the Supreme Court so much to argue about reserved powers. Let us have clarity going forward to avoid the number of clashes in the courts that there have been.

[Alun Cairns]

One key purpose of the Bill is to provide clarity of powers and responsibility. I want anyone who lives and works in Wales and outside to understand who is responsible for what. Therefore, the requirement to go to the Supreme Court to clarify individual points will be needless because of the clarity provided in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The adjustments to the auditing arrangements demonstrate the maturity of the organisation. Where the money from the Welsh Consolidated Fund is being used and is being spent, it is absolutely right that the Auditor General for Wales acts and scrutinises that. Where money is being used from UK departmental funds and the Treasury, it is right for the Comptroller and Auditor General to scrutinise and develop that. I will happily look at further detail in the issues the hon. Gentleman raises about the potential of joint projects, and I will come back to him in due course. But these adjustments have been made at the request of the Welsh Government, supported by the Auditor General for Wales and accepted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I hope the satisfaction of those bodies will satisfy the concerns in the relevant question that has been raised.

So we do not agree with the proposal, but, as I have mentioned, positive progress has been made between the UK Government and the Welsh Government on the franchising arrangements. Outstanding issues remain, and the Welsh Government and UK Government have been working over recent months to get to a position that works for all passengers and both Governments.

In amendment 2 the hon. Member for Newport West proposes devolving powers over the community infrastructure levy. I am pleased to see that uptake of the levy in Wales has made some progress with three charging authorities now collecting the levy—Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taff. It is a key objective of national planning policy in both England and Wales that local planning authorities plan positively for infrastructure needs. The levy is an important mechanism for securing funding for infrastructure. This amendment ties with the calls of the Welsh Government, but I can also see that in many ways it makes sense to have a unified development levy system across England and Wales. Complexities across borders can hinder investment. I am not therefore minded to agree to the amendment. Much of the argument behind the calls for it has been that the policy does not work for smaller authorities, of which there are many in Wales, but I would point out that Merthyr Tydfil and Caerphilly are two of the smallest authorities in Wales and they have made effective use of the community infrastructure levy.

Amendment 60 seeks to establish Wales as a separate legal jurisdiction, an issue that was debated extensively as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill and in Committee. In its second report, published in March 2014, the Silk commission recommended that there

“should be further administrative devolution in the court system”.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the issue of the separate legal jurisdiction, while it is obviously sensible with an emerging body of distinct Welsh law to monitor and review that going forward, does the Secretary of State agree that what we must be careful of with a separate legal jurisdiction now is imposing separate legal jurisdiction service requirements and other things that would lead to Offa’s Dyke becoming a barrier to access to justice?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point and contributed in Committee to that effect, which considerably influenced a number of Members who had raised questions and concerns as the issue was debated. The hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area should be well-heeded by those who want to see Wales flourish with a distinctive body of Welsh law, but who also recognise that the joint jurisdiction has worked and served well and effectively, and sends a clear message to potential investors and operators in Wales over the clarity and simplicity that is provided.

Many of the recommendations relating to administrative devolution in fact reflect the current position in Wales: the senior courts already sit in Wales, the administration of Welsh courts is overseen by HMCTS Wales, and court sittings are co-ordinated locally. The broader question of the case for devolving legislative responsibility was one of the key issues examined in the cross-party discussions under the St David’s Day process. Members will be aware that, as set out in the St David’s Day agreement, there is no political consensus to devolve justice. My party’s 2015 election manifesto made it clear that we would continue to reserve justice and policing. The Government are fully committed to maintaining the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. It has served Wales very well. It is also our firm view that it is the most effective, efficient and consistent way to deliver justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

Yes. We are working in close harmony with the Welsh Government on most of the recommendations. There is a sensible consensus between the Welsh Government, the UK Government and most parties. That is the only way forward if we are to build trust in devolution.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The point is that since most of the necessity tests have been removed from the Bill the issue of the separate legal jurisdiction has become less complicated. The position outlined by my hon. Friend about looking at this emerging body of Welsh law and finding a pragmatic solution is entirely sensible and appropriate.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—we acknowledge his expertise in this matter. We will be looking for practical solutions. We hope that this subject comes up before the next Bill, but it guarantees the eternal nature of such Bills.

The Secretary of State described amendments 68 and 69 as mischievous, but I assure him that they are constructive and topical with Members having today gone through the trauma of the proposed constituency boundary changes. The proposals have brought anguish or joy to those of us who are looking forward to long careers in this House. As a late developer in politics and in life, I felt some anxiety that my career, which will reach its halfway point next year, could be cut short prematurely by the boundary changes, so I took some special interest in the matter.

The amendments propose changes to the methods used for deciding the number of Welsh Assembly Members. We have a crisis of democracy in this country. The mother of democracy has been degraded in many ways, a charge which comes from both sides of the House. People can buy their seats in the House of Lords through the acceptable practice of making donations to one of the three main parties. The Lords has 200 superfluous Members. Who said that? It was the new Speaker in the House of Lords. There is a case for immediate reform of that unelected place.

Problems also arise from other parts of our democracy. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), Chairman of the Procedure Committee, made a powerful point last Thursday when he said that the planned move to cut the number of elected Members of Parliament was unjustified

“while the Lords continues to gorge itself on new arrivals.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 502.]

He is absolutely right. We need to change our democracy in many ways.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is rightly highlighting that there the debate should be broader than just what is mentioned in the amendments. Does he agree that there is an enormous democratic deficit in pushing ahead with the constituency boundary changes when nearly 2 million people newly on the electoral register will not be counted?

[Paul Flynn]

It is the virtual disfranchisement of 2 million, so it is wrong on that basis. The timing is wrong.

Analysis of the boundary changes by Lord Hayward, a former Member of this House and Conservative peer, suggests that Labour would lose 13% of its MPs and that the Conservatives would lose 5%. Looking at the wreckage of our democratic system, which piece is being reformed?

--- 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.