Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Wayne David and David Jones

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

4. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on EU regional funding as part of his preparations for negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

The Chancellor has already announced that the Government will guarantee EU structural and investment funding signed before we leave the EU. In addition, when UK organisations bid directly and competitively for EU funding for projects, that funding will be guaranteed by the Treasury if the bids are won before our departure. Those guarantees will extend to 2020, effectively the end of this Parliament.

[Wayne David]

The Minister has quoted part of what the Chancellor said, but he also said that finance will be guaranteed to bidders

“whose projects meet UK priorities”.

Does that imply that the UK Government will try to change agreed priorities for EU expenditure?

[Mr Jones]

No. Over the coming months the Government will consult all interested parties—including the devolved Administrations, who clearly have an interest in this policy—to ensure that future funding commitments represent value for money and are in line with our strategic priorities.

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Wayne David and David Jones

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I would like briefly to refer to three issues: first, what has happened to the draft Wales Bill; secondly, the importance of the European Union to Wales; and, thirdly, the need for the third runway at Heathrow airport from a Welsh perspective.

I have to ask where the Secretary of State for Wales is this afternoon. Surely this is an important debate and his place really ought to have been in this Chamber listening to what Members have to say and responding to their remarks. It is not asking too much that he show some courteousness and political common sense by coming here. I very much hope that he will learn the lesson from his embarrassment this afternoon. The Under-Secretary will clearly take that message back to him.

Quite a significant decision has been taken by the Secretary of State over the past week—to withdraw the draft Wales Bill—but I am concerned that there has been no oral statement or even a written statement. There has been no communication with the House of Commons. We learned about the decision from the press. That is a gross discourtesy and an undermining of the parliamentary system that we are all committed to.

That brings me to my main issue. I ask the House this question: what do the following individuals and organisations have in common? They are the Wales Governance Centre, the leaders of three political parties in Wales, the Learned Society of Wales, Sir Paul Silk, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, the head of the Wales office of the Law Society, and the professor of governance and constitution at University College, London—and the list could go on. The answer is that they all said that the draft Wales Bill was not fit for purpose. There was relative unanimity on that among those in Wales who follow these issues closely—the objective experts and academics, and the people who are at the sharp end of implementing legislation. I am sure the Under-Secretary will say, “Well, yes, that is why we withdrew the Bill—we listened”, but would it not have been better if he had listened at the start?

Concern was expressed about the draft Bill right from the very beginning, when it was first published. I have a copy here, and quite a heavy tome it is. The Secretary of State said in the foreword:

“This draft Bill sets out in detail how the Government plans to deliver the St David’s Day commitments to create a stronger, clearer and fairer devolution settlement for Wales that will stand the test of time.”

It stood the test of time for four months, and then he recognised what everybody else was saying—that it was not fit for purpose and he should go back to the drawing board and start all over again.

[Mr David Jones]

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms, but does he not agree that it is far better to get the legislation right than to bring through hasty legislation that does not stand the test of time? In that regard, did he read the recent report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that bemoaned the fact that the Blair Government of 1997 hastened through legislation that has now resulted in the West Lothian question not being addressed?

[Wayne David]

I agree up to a point. Pre-legislative scrutiny is good—it makes for better legislation—but it would have been far better if the Wales Office had recognised that meaningful constitutional change can be achieved only on the basis of a high degree of political consensus. It cannot be achieved by a Government—any Government—trying to push through legislation that does not command broad support and is seen by some people as partisan and not properly thought through. That was one of the fundamental problems with the draft Bill. Many people thought it was purely impractical and would therefore lead to bad governance. That lesson ought to be learned.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Wayne David and David Jones

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I was coming to exactly that point. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Wrexham, a mechanism has to be devised so that in areas of doubt, of which there will be many, the Speaker can apprise himself of Members’ views and take any wider evidence he requires to make that determination. It seems to me that there would be nothing to preclude him from doing so on the basis of the draft Standing Orders as they stand. My suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is that an amendment to the draft Standing Orders should be made in order to accommodate that very procedure.

[Wayne David]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, and I can well understand the validity of his case. However, he suggests an interpretation of the draft Standing Orders which means that the Speaker may be asked to make a subjective decision. I suggest that that is fraught with difficulties.

[Mr Jones]

As I just said, it seems to me that a further amendment should be made to the draft Standing Orders to accommodate that.

I am conscious of your strictures about time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to say to my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I raised this issue as long ago as 16 December 2014 with my right hon. Friend’s predecessor, William Hague, who said in reply to my question:

“In respect of a small number of cross-border issues involving a strong structural dependence—health care in Wales is one such instance—there is a strong case for a wide definition of what constitutes an English matter, so that others can be involved.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1276-67.]

I ask the Government Front-Bench team to consider that. It seems to me that a sensible amendment could be made to the draft Standing Orders as they are now, in order to accommodate this issue of structural dependence, which is not properly addressed at the moment. As an instrument, the Standing Orders are somewhat blunt as drafted, and need to be refined.