Business of the House

Debate between Wayne David and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

She has a private Member’s Bill, and time has been allocated for that, but as she will appreciate, the order of private Members’ Bills is subject to the order in which Members have put them forward.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has not been as clear as she might have been, but it appears to be the case that tomorrow’s vote will not be a meaningful one because the Government seem to have separated the withdrawal agreement from the political declaration. The House needs to approve both in order for them to be put on a statutory basis, but it has been suggested that if the House debates and approves only the withdrawal agreement, that might be sufficient for this country to remain within the European Union until 22 May through an extension of our timetable to depart. Can she confirm whether that is correct?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman asks me a very specific question about a motion that has not yet been finalised. That is something that I am not in a position to answer at the moment. I apologise to him for not being able to answer it, but I have responded to many Members in the same vein and I have sought to be as transparent as possible in saying that the motion will be brought forward as soon as it is finalised.

Business of the House

Debate between Wayne David and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, at the last business questions, you stated that you expected the Government to make an announcement in the House of Commons about the awarding of the mechanised infantry vehicle contract. In fact, that announcement was made during the recess, on Easter Saturday—a time, I would suggest, deliberately designed to minimise publicity and avoid scrutiny. May we have a debate in Government time in this House as soon as possible on that important £2 billion contract?

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I reiterate my commitment to ensuring that Parliament is the place where as many announcements as possible are made. I also draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that we will have Defence questions on Monday, so he will have an opportunity to raise his concern directly at that point.

Business of the House

Debate between Wayne David and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon; I misheard her. There are strong rules on how people use the roads when they are on drugs or alcohol or when they are using their mobile phones, and those rules are upheld by police forces. The Government are ensuring that police forces across the UK have access to up to £450 million of new funding that will meet their policing priorities. Of course it is an operational matter for each police force to prioritise where they see fit.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

There is a private estate in my constituency, Cwm Calon, where the developer, Redrow, has behaved in a thoroughly reprehensible and disgraceful manner in relation to residents’ legitimate complaints about the state of the communal areas on their estate. I understand that the Government intend to introduce legislation to extend the rights of freehold residents on private estates, so may we have a debate to discuss the Government’s plans?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are bringing in new measures to protect tenants and homeowners in leasehold houses from some of the steps that developers are taking that really are there to rip off those who wish to own their own homes. We will be bringing forward legislation in those areas, so there will be opportunities for debate on those subjects.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Wayne David and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Thank you, Sir David.

Clauses 46 and 47 deliver the Smith commission agreement and provide Scottish Ministers with greater influence over the strategic direction of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and of MG Alba. They achieve that by enabling Scottish Ministers to appoint a member of the Northern Lighthouse Board and by giving Scottish Ministers the power to approve Ofcom appointments to MG Alba.

Clause 48 provides that the Secretary of State will be required to consult Scottish Ministers when setting the strategic priorities in relation to the exercise of functions in Scotland regarding the activities of Her Majesty’s Coastguard and the safety standards of ships. These functions are exercisable by the Secretary of State for Transport, but are in practice carried out in the UK by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, an Executive agency of the Department for Transport.

The Smith commission agreement was explicit in the devolution of the power to allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises funded and specified by Scottish Ministers, and clause 49 achieves that.

Clauses 50, 51 and 52 implement the Smith commission agreement and devolve design and implementation powers relating to energy efficiency and fuel poverty to Scottish Ministers, while reserving responsibility for the overarching aspects that affect all consumers in Great Britain, such as scale, costs and apportionment of obligations, as well as the obligated parties. The clauses contain safeguards to give effect to the Smith commission agreement that the devolution of these powers

“be implemented in a way that is not to the detriment of the rest of the UK or to the UK’s international obligations and commitments on energy efficiency and climate change.”

It is the Government’s position that such provisions are necessary. Specifically, we believe that it would be in the interests of UK and Scottish Ministers that the benefits provided to consumers in one part of Great Britain should be proportionate to the costs on consumers in that part of Great Britain.

Scottish Ministers should be able to design supplier obligations for Scotland, but costs should be proportionate across regions, removing the possibility of competitive distortions and cross-subsidy by consumers across Great Britain. We will look at ways of making the costs of obligations clear and equitable between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain.

Clause 53 creates a formal consultative role for Scottish Ministers in the design of renewable electricity incentive schemes that will apply in Scotland. Clause 54 will enable Scottish Ministers to take decisions on safety zones for renewable energy installations in Scottish waters by making Scottish Ministers the appropriate Ministers, and it will enable them to take responsibility for ensuring that offshore renewable energy installations are removed or decommissioned at the end of their useful life. It ensures that consent to and decommissioning of offshore renewable energy installations and the management of Crown Estate assets in relation to such installations are the responsibility of Scottish Ministers, rather than being divided between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State.

Clause 55 delivers the Smith commission agreement by devolving to Scottish Ministers, when acting jointly with the Secretary of State, the power to require the Competition and Markets Authority to carry out a market investigation reference when they suspect that features of a market are preventing, restricting or distorting competition. Clause 56 requires Scottish Ministers to lay Ofgem’s annual report and accounts before the Scottish Parliament. To enable that, it ensures that copies will be provided to Scottish Ministers.

Clause 57 gives effect to two key elements of paragraph 38 of the Smith commission agreement relating to Ofcom. It gives Scottish Ministers the power to appoint one member to the Ofcom board to represent the interests of Scotland, and it requires Ofcom’s annual report and accounts to be laid before the Scottish Parliament. Clause 58 gives effect to paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 of the Smith commission agreement relating to the appearance of the Northern Lighthouse Board, Ofcom and Ofgem before the Scottish Parliament on matters relating to Scotland.

Finally, part 7 contains standard technical clauses, including general provisions associated with the Bill, such as transitional provisions, commencement arrangements and the short title.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Before speaking to amendments 157 and 158 to clause 49, I would like to comment on clauses 50 and 51, which relate to fuel poverty support schemes and energy company obligations. I would like the Minister to explain—indeed, to justify—why those clauses are constructed as they are. They amend existing primary legislation, but they are far from clear.

Our starting point must be paragraph 68 of the Smith commission’s report, which states:

“Powers to determine how supplier obligations in relation to energy efficiency and fuel poverty… will be devolved. Responsibility for setting the way the money is raised… will remain reserved.”

Importantly, it then states:

“This provision will be implemented in a way that is not to the detriment of the rest of the UK or to the UK’s international obligations and commitments on energy efficiency and climate change.”

Indeed, paragraph 68 is one of the more prescriptive in the report.

Clauses 50 and 51 also state clearly that any action proposed by Scottish Ministers should not be to the detriment of the United Kingdom as a whole. I want to press the Minister on the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State to determine whether a course of action proposed by Scottish Ministers would be to the detriment of the UK. That is clearly stated in clause 50, and at several points in clause 51. Specifically, proposed new section 14A(8)(b) in clause 50 refers to schemes likely to

“cause detriment to the United Kingdom”.

However, it does not state how detriment in all cases may be judged to have occurred. Proposed new section 14A(9) states that

“considerations that the Secretary of State may take into account include the costs imposed on suppliers by virtue of schemes made, or to be made, by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers under section 9.”

That is section 9 of the Energy Act 2010.

In clause 51, proposed new section 33BCA(7) and others make similar references to “detriment” and to “costs”. Here, too, the phrase “may take into account” is used, which strongly implies that the Secretary of State will not be obliged to take costs into account. It seems that he will also be able to take other, non-specified factors into account. The same can be said of other amendments to existing legislation proposed in clause 51.

What I find worrying about the proposed new sections in clauses 50 and 51 is the lack of specificity and the significant discretion placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. Apart from the politics of this, there is a question of the lack of clarity and, with it, the possibility of any course of action being justiciable. I am not a lawyer—I am an ordinary person—but my experiences over the past decade or so tell me that if there is a lack of clarity in legislation, all too often it is the judges who end up providing that clarity.

I am thinking of the action taken two years ago by the UK Government against the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government wanted to protect Welsh agricultural workers after the UK Government abolished the Agricultural Wages Board, and the UK Government lost the case in the Supreme Court. That is simply an example that springs to mind of what can happen when legislative imprecision leads to legal problems. I would welcome the Minister’s response to the points I have made.

Let me turn to clause 49—Rail: franchising of passenger services. It amends section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 to remove the prohibition on public sector operators bidding for a franchise in relation to a Scottish franchise agreement. The Smith commission’s report stated clearly, in paragraph 65:

“The power will be devolved to the Scottish Government to allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises funded and specified by Scottish Ministers.”

Labour’s amendment 157 would take a small but significant step further, but in a way that is in keeping with the spirit of the Smith commission’s report. In proposing to allow not-for-profit operators, it echoes the proposal by Gordon Brown prior to the referendum.

European Union Bill

Debate between Wayne David and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

It is important that we recognise that the British people have a voice, which is why we have been clear that it is important that referendums are held on major constitutional issues and the issue of a single currency. It is important that the British people are engaged in the debate about Europe in a way that they have not been for a good time. However, the way to do that is through constructive and rational debate. There is nothing wrong with having referendums on big, important issues, but we are firmly against having referendums on paper clips and minutiae.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman regret the fact, then, than when in government Labour did not give the British people a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We are talking about amendments from the Lords on constitutional issues. I am sure, Mr David, that you were going to come to the Dispatch Box and focus on exactly those issues.