Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and allows me to underline once again the positive financial commitments this Government have made to Wales. In addition to the 115% funding for the Barnett floor that we have introduced, there is a £2.8 billion investment in electrification and £500 million for a city deal, on top of a range of other projects—UK taxpayers’ money being invested in Wales on top of the Barnett consequentials.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Given that Wales will no longer receive funding through the European regional development fund, which is allocated on objective needs-based criteria, and that Holtham saw the Barnett floor as a temporary transition measure, what consideration is the Secretary of State giving to developing a clearly needs-based formula for allocating funding to Wales?

[Alun Cairns]

There were many campaigns for a Barnett floor but it was only this Government who delivered on that. On European funds, we have not yet concluded our negotiating position, but simply replacing what are currently EU funds with another source from Westminster misses the point: the EU referendum sent out a number of messages, and those areas that receive most EU funds were the areas, sadly, that voted most strongly to leave the EU. We need to look at models of regional aid in a different way.

Wales Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

On reports to what will be the Welsh Parliament, we must look more broadly at justice in Wales, and not exclusively in relation to the jurisdiction. Wales already has a High Court district registry in Cardiff, which no doubt could be developed, and the Court of Appeal often sits in Wales. We need a real open justice system in Wales that is not just stuck in Cardiff, Swansea, Caernarfon or wherever, but is willing to go out and sit in different buildings and genuinely bring justice closer to the people. The pragmatic way forward on jurisdiction is by far the best because we would not bring all those disadvantages into play, but we can also build on the opportunity in amendment 7 to consider the whole justice system in Wales and ensure that we truly have access to justice for all.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to support amendment 7, to reaffirm my support for the Bill, and to thank the Secretary of State for bringing it forward so quickly. We would all like it to be enacted as soon as possible. I also thank him for recognising the growing body of Welsh law, and for his initiative to set up a body to consider that. Amendment 7 would confirm that body in writing in the Bill, meaning that a report on the state of affairs is made on a regular basis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) so eloquently expressed, this is not a simple issue about which we can just have a yes or no discussion; it is a growing body of law and a number of complex issues arise. If that measure was included firmly in the Bill so that a report was made on a regular basis, we would have the opportunity to consider the direction things were going in and whether any changes were needed. The amendment states clearly that the report will consider

“whether the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales should be divided into a jurisdiction for Wales and a jurisdiction for England.”

We want that practical, sensible solution included in the Bill so we can be certain that the review will continue to take place, and so that recommendations and reports come from that, which may or may not lead to a different view on things as that body of law grows. I reaffirm my support for the Bill, and I hope that amendment 7 will be included.

[Mr Mark Williams]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Laing. I reiterate my support for the amendments on the permanence of the National Assembly. I think that they originate in the office of the Presiding Officer who co-represents the Ceredigion constituency, but regardless of our constituency interests, there is huge sympathy and empathy with the principle of permanence right across the Committee—perhaps there are one or two exceptions on the Government Benches.

Amendments 3 and 4 are probing amendments like those tabled by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). I do not intend to divide the Committee on those amendments, but I wish to elicit from the Minister a little more detail that is currently not in the Bill. To avoid clashes between the two legislatures on devolved matters, this Parliament has hitherto adopted a self-denying ordinance, and would not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the National Assembly.

I believe there is a consensus on the Opposition Benches, which is reflected by my amendment and amendments 24 and 25 tabled by Plaid Cymru, that the new provision does not provide a complete statement of the circumstances in which the Assembly’s consent is required in respect of parliamentary legislation. The Bill fails to mention the circumstances in which proposed legislation would modify the legislative competence of the Assembly itself. The amendments seek to clarify that. The requirement for consent in itself is not the issue. The Bill will at some point require the assent of the National Assembly for Wales, but in the interests of clarity and transparency the amendment sets out the circumstances when the Assembly’s consent should normally be required. I think it provides a tidier definition of devolved matters.

The meat of this grouping relates to a separate, although interestingly in this debate not a distinct, jurisdiction. I understand the principle behind Plaid Cymru’s amendments. We have heard about a separate jurisdiction and less about a distinct jurisdiction. The Government have gone as far in the Bill as to acknowledge and recognise a body of Welsh law. That is an important principle, but it is where we take that principle that concerns me. I am led in the direction of the Labour party’s amendment, which follows the stance established in the increasingly dated Silk report, which is something of a bible to Liberal Democrats. Silk, in that now slightly dusty report, talked about reviewing the case for devolving legislative responsibility for the court service—sentencing, legal aid, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary—to the National Assembly. I think he would endorse the speech just made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the case for a broader review of the legal system in Wales. Silk also talked about the need, in recommendation 34, for a “periodic report” by the UK Government, in consultation with the Welsh Government, to the UK Parliament and to the National Assembly on how access to justice is improving in Wales, and that there should be a regular dialogue between the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Welsh Ministers on the administration of justice in Wales.

The groundwork has therefore already been done for the Labour party’s amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to keep under review the justice system as it applies in relation to Wales, with a view to reform. For some of us, the inevitable divergence of English and Welsh law being open to the possibility of reform is critically important. As a Liberal, there is still the question of timing. There is a very clear Plaid Cymru amendment. We have something that has been described as more pragmatic. Simplistically, we could say that it beefs up what Silk was talking about some time ago.

The Government have acknowledged that this is an issue by providing legal clarity on a Welsh body of law. They have also acknowledged it through the creation of a judicial working group. We talked on Second Reading about the principle of setting up the Government’s working group, which is welcome, but I do not believe it is sufficient to address the issues before us today. I am led to believe that the Welsh Assembly Government have not been invited to participate in its work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

The powers as envisaged do not involve the complete block grant. The block grant—the total money available to Wales—will not change on day one. The only issue of contention is the fiscal framework; I have been making that point. The devolution of the fiscal power itself is not an issue in terms of making Wales poorer on day one.

There is also a technical reason why we should be fully devolving income tax powers. It is far more difficult to create a fair fiscal framework to accompany the partial devolution of income tax as opposed to full devolution. The result of this would be to enable future Welsh Governments to continue to avoid responsibility for their mistakes. In the interests of transparency, accountability and—critically—incentivisation, I hope even at this late stage that the UK Government will accept my new clause 3.

A key element of ensuring that the devolution of income tax is devolved successfully is the empowerment of the National Assembly to set income tax thresholds. New clause 2 aims to achieve this objective and I will press it to a vote on the second day of Committee, with the Chair’s permission. If we have time, I would also like to press new clause 3. We will discuss these new clauses on Monday.

New clause 2 is of vital importance as we embark on the journey of devolving income tax powers. The setting of thresholds is a key component of being able to use those powers based on domestic considerations. The Welsh economy in comparison to other parts of the UK is, regrettably, currently a lower-wage economy, a concern raised by Labour colleagues. New clause 2 would enable the National Assembly ultimately to determine the number of income tax thresholds and the levels at which they are set, including, critically, the basic rate. That freedom would enable the Finance Minister of the Welsh Government, whoever he or she may be, to set innovative income tax structures aimed at maximising revenues for the Welsh Exchequer to invest in Welsh public services, but also to encourage wealth creation and encourage investment.

It has been a consistent policy of the current Chancellor to increase personal allowances—in other words to increase the rate at which people begin paying income tax. Brexit may lead to a radical reversal of this policy in the coming months and years by the next Chancellor as revenues reduce. However, the key point is that as long as the ability to set personal allowances is reserved to London and Wales has a low-wage economy, decisions by Chancellors here could have a significant impact on the revenue available to invest in Welsh public services.

It really is all or nothing when it comes to the devolution of income tax and, as someone who supports making the Welsh Government fiscally responsible, I very much hope that the UK Government decide to support the former. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

[Nia Griffith]

I shall speak to several amendments, in particular amendment 11, which provides that income tax powers may not be devolved to the Welsh Assembly until a fiscal framework has been approved by both Houses of Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

We have always said that a fiscal framework must ensure that Wales is not disadvantaged by taking on the devolution of some income tax powers. In the wake of the EU referendum result, it is all the more urgent that the Government develop a coherent and redistributory regional funding strategy not just for Wales, but for the whole of the UK.

The EU uses specific criteria for designating the areas that should receive structural funds by comparing the income of an area with the EU average. Areas in Wales such as the valleys and west Wales have benefited because they have a GDP that is less than 75% of the EU average, as has Cornwall, and many other areas have benefited because their GDP is between 75% and 90% of the EU average, including south Yorkshire and Merseyside. It is, broadly speaking, a needs-based system. As Members across the House will remember, Holtham recommended that funding for Wales should be based on a needs-based formula. However, a sophisticated formula would take time to develop.

It is simply unacceptable for Wales to accept the devolution of income tax without an order in both Houses and the consent of the Welsh Assembly, because those measures would give elected Members the chance to discuss the funding and the fiscal framework so that we do not see a cut to our funding and then get told to make up the rest by increasing income tax.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with the point about the potential trap for Wales. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that of many of my constituents about the uncertainty that is being created for projects such as the south Wales metro, which was due to be funded by the EU? We are not clear where that £150 million of funding will come from. If we do not have clarity on Wales’s fiscal framework and on whether we will be better off or not, projects like that will be in doubt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is even more serious than that because many jobs depend on EU funding. People might find that they no longer have the apprenticeship opportunities, training opportunities and many other things that are supported by the EU but that are not quite as obvious as the concrete structures.

It would be very difficult for the Welsh Government to make up a significant shortfall in the block grant. The block grant is some £15 billion per annum, whereas the total income tax raised in Wales amounts to some £4.9 billion. It would be very difficult to make up any percentage cut to that £15 billion, particularly if we wanted to protect the standard taxpayer. It is therefore vital that there is an opportunity for negotiation and for a vote and approval before any devolution of income tax.

People might think that I am very suspicious of the Conservative party and that I do not trust it an inch. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Well, I just think that we have to look at the facts. Look at what it has done with councils in England. It has told them that if they want to increase social care funding, they can raise it through council tax hikes. If anyone thinks that the UK Government run by the Conservative party are committed to fair funding or needs-based formulas and are free from partisan bias, I remind them that between 2012 and 2020 the average cut in spending power per household in Labour council areas in England is more than five times higher than the average cut in Tory local authority areas.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I regret to inform my hon. Friend that the situation is worse than she describes, because when special funding was identified for councils, 85% of it went to Conservative-held authorities.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend confirms my very worst fears. Instead of having needs-based funding, the average cut per household in a Tory area will be in the region £68 by the end of the Parliament, whereas in Labour council areas it will be more than £340. My fear is that the block grant will be cut and we will be told to make up the rest through income tax hikes in Wales. As Members are well aware, there has been no full assessment of the impact on Wales of different rates of tax on the different sides of a very porous border, so we really have no idea what will happen.

Wales Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is said that devolution is a process, not an event, a journey rather than a destination, and that is certainly true when it comes to the Bill. The journey has taken longer than it should have done, because in the draft Wales Bill the immediate predecessor of the Secretary of State seemed determined to drive us along a tortuous and convoluted path, going back the way we had come. That was in spite of an extraordinarily united chorus of navigators—everyone from Cymdeithas yr laith to the Conservative group in the Assembly—telling him to turn round the other way. It was quite an achievement to unite everyone against that Bill. Mind you, the Bill was so bad that it would have made the Assembly’s job impossible, and it would definitely have taken Welsh devolution backwards, not forwards. I am glad, however, that the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) eventually listened, put the brakes on, and prepared to change direction. We now have a piece of legislation that, while not perfect, is definitely a marked improvement.

I suppose like any lost driver, the right hon. Gentleman could be forgiven for hurling some irrational abuse at those of us trying to offer navigational advice. In February, he told us in no uncertain terms that we were launching some kind of separatist plot, that we had

“given up on the union”

and that all our criticism was actually a bid for Welsh independence. I hope that we can have a more sensible and measured debate today.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend will remember from the Welsh Grand Committee debate on 3 February that the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said:

“There is nothing in the draft Bill that makes the Welsh Assembly consider whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary.”—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 3 February 2016; c. 61.]

Is my hon. Friend as pleased as me that finally the then Secretary of State realised what was in his own Bill?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed, it was laughable at times when the former Secretary of State noticed things to which we assumed he had already given his approval.

I want to make it clear at the outset that we welcome the reserved powers model, for which we have been calling for some time, as we feel that it has the potential to clarify the devolution settlement, and we welcome each of the new powers contained in the Bill. As the party that established the Welsh Assembly, we want to see our devolution settlement strengthened, with more powers devolved from Westminster to Wales. We are glad that the Assembly will have new powers over transport, energy and elections. As with the areas it already controls, the Assembly will be able to use those new powers to make different choices that reflect the will of people in Wales.

The powers over shale gas extraction will allow the Assembly to take into account the very real fears that people in Wales have about fracking. Labour has made it clear that, as the necessary safeguards cannot yet be met, we should not push ahead with fracking. We welcome the powers over energy planning consents for projects generating up to 350 MW, but we would certainly like full powers over grid connections devolved to Welsh Government. I hope that that is what we will hear from the Secretary of State.

That would not solve the delays with the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, which are due to the failure by Conservative Ministers to agree a viable financial framework for investors to proceed. I very much hope that the Secretary of State does everything he can to speed up the review, so that we can have a world first in Wales, with all the positive spin-offs for our manufacturing industry, rather than letting other countries steal a march on us.

The power to change the name of the Assembly means that we could call it a Welsh Parliament. Responsibility for the voting age in Welsh elections means that the Assembly could introduce votes at 16 for elections to the Assembly and to local councils. Whatever the Assembly decides, what matters is that those decisions will be taken in Wales by elected Assembly Members.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)]

What concerns me about the devolution of powers to the Assembly on elections is that 16-year-olds could vote in local government and Assembly elections, but not in elections for MPs to the House. Does my hon. Friend share that concern?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. As a long-time supporter of votes at 16, which is now Labour policy, I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that that could be the case.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that the new electoral legislation might enable a Welsh Parliament or Welsh Government to impose compulsory voting on our country? Would she support that or oppose it?

--- 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.

[Mr David Jones]

The hon. Lady mentions what she sees as the need for the Assembly to consent to the devolution of tax powers, but what about the people of Wales? Given that the people of Scotland were consulted in a referendum prior to tax-raising powers being given, does she not think that the people of Wales deserve the same respect?

[Nia Griffith]

We have moved on since the last Wales Bill, but it is vital that there is a mechanism to establish a clear financial framework with a “no detriment” principle so that the Welsh Assembly can have the confidence to decide whether to accept the devolution of tax-raising powers.

As I said at the outset, this Bill is not perfect and it will require amendments, but I hope that the UK Government will commit to working constructively with the Welsh Government and with Opposition parties to ensure that we deliver the strong, stable, workable settlement that the people of Wales deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister accept that it was in our 2010 manifesto? It was actually our Secretary of State who put it in our manifesto, so it came from us originally.

[Guto Bebb]

Well—[Interruption]—as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) just said from the Treasury Bench, it took 13 years for it to become a Labour manifesto commitment, yet we have delivered it within a few months of having a majority Conservative Government. I think we should be very proud of the fact that we have delivered that funding floor.

Significant questions have been asked about the retention of the two necessity tests. Those two tests are justified. We are saying clearly that there is a necessity test where the Assembly is legislating on matters that affect England. That is the right thing to do because there is an issue of accountability and democracy, and I do not think the Assembly should be legislating on issues that relate to England without having the necessity test. In the same way, where the Assembly seeks to legislate on matters that relate to reserved powers, it is important to have that necessity test. It should be noted that that second test is also in the Scottish Bill.

The hon. Member for Llanelli asked whether there will be a disincentive for devolved ports to grow. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill is clear that the sum in question is a fixed sum at the point at which this Bill is passed. For example, if a port has a turnover of £14 million, it will be devolved; if it then grows, it will remain devolved. There is no prospect of a clawback. In relation to a trust port, the argument for retaining responsibility for Milford Haven in Westminster is clearly made by the fact that it is responsible for 62% of all our gas imports. But this is again a step in the right direction and if, for example, as a result of the Welsh Government or the Welsh Assembly’s activity there is growth in the ports of Holyhead or Newport, they will remain part of the responsibility of the Welsh Government. That is a step in the right direction.

The hon. Member for Arfon mentioned that there is a difference between the way we treat water services and sewerage. The reason why one is mentioned in the Bill and the other is not is because we are now equalising the situation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are also looking carefully at the situation in relation to water, and more information will be forthcoming at a future point.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West, highlighted issues in relation to energy. It is fair to say that this House has legislated to pass responsibility for wind farm developments to local authorities in Wales, and I think there should be a challenge to the Welsh Government as to why they do not trust local authorities with that responsibility. The Energy Act 2016 made that commitment to a local level of control on wind farms. I think we should all challenge the Welsh Government as to why they are unwilling to trust the local people on an issue of that nature.

The capacity of power lines was also touched on. Again, clarity is required here. It is correct to say that there will be a limitation in that power lines going across the border at a higher level than 132 kV will remain the responsibility of Westminster whereas other such matters will be devolved. This, too, is a significant step in the right direction that will make a real difference for economic development in Wales.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion highlighted three matters on the reservation list and asked why they had been reserved. One was the Severn crossing, which I touched on in an intervention. We believe that it is inappropriate to devolve powers over the Severn bridges when three of the four landing points are in England. That would be taking devolution to an extent that would bring it into disrepute. He also asked about prostitution, which does not fall into the category of legislating for criminal behaviour. It falls under schedule 2, because the aim is to ensure that there is no possibility of changing the legislation. We had to place it separately within the legislation in order to respond to legal constraints. He also asked about heating and cooling systems, and the aim there is to ensure that everything to do with electricity and gas appliances is regulated in the same manner across England and Wales. Again, this is an effort to ensure clarity.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West asked about speed limits being devolved. It is important to point out that that was a recommendation by the Silk commission. The proposal was also part of the St David’s day process and there was agreement on it at that stage. Also, changes to speed limits in Wales are already being implemented at local authority level, so we believe that this is an appropriate change.

It is fair to say that this is a complex and difficult Bill. It has had a long gestation period, and it is been subject to significant scrutiny here in the House and in the Welsh Assembly, as well as by civic society in Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman is a champion of this issue and has been ever since I have been in this place. I share his view of the tourism industry in Wales: it is a success story of which we should be justly proud. It is important that the case is made to the Treasury, but I stress that the tourism industry in my constituency and in that of the hon. Gentleman is doing extremely well at present, regardless of any changes to VAT.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As the Minister well knows, many small businesses in Wales are highly dependent on the steel industry and will have been anxiously awaiting the outcome of today’s meeting in Mumbai. The terms of the package that his Government propose will be crucial to any potential deal, so will he confirm that they will do everything it takes to secure a successful future for our steel industry?

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the steel industry not just to direct employment but to the supply chains in both north and south Wales. I assure her that the Wales Office and the UK Government are doing everything in their power to ensure that the steel industry and its skilled supply chain are protected in the future.

[Nia Griffith]

Many of our small businesses will also be concerned about the EU referendum, not least those in the Welsh agricultural sector, which received some £350 million a year from the common agricultural policy. The Minister has previously confirmed that, in the event of a Brexit vote, there is absolutely no certainty that his Government would replace those EU funds, so does he agree that it is in the very best interests of Welsh farming and the broader Welsh economy that we vote to remain in the EU on 23 June?

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the agricultural industry to Wales. Almost 60,000 people are directly employed within the sector, and more than 95% of all Welsh agricultural exports go to the European Union, so I fully subscribe to her view that the Welsh agricultural sector will be protected if we vote to remain in the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligent and persistent campaigning on the issue. I know that he was absolutely delighted when the Chancellor was able to respond to his and many other Conservative colleagues’ requests. Of course, a debt will remain on the tolls even when the bridges come back into public ownership in 2018 or thereabouts. That debt will still need to be serviced, as will the innovations on free-flowing traffic that we want to introduce.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on their recent appointments. Labour Members look forward to working constructively with them, particularly on the new Wales Bill, whenever that may appear.

To clarify, in last month’s Budget the Chancellor made much of halving the tolls on the Severn crossings, but as we have since discovered that is not quite the bargain it appears to be. The 50% discount includes the 20% of VAT, which disappears anyway when the bridge reverts to public ownership, and of course businesses reclaim VAT. So instead of leaving businesses still paying thousands of pounds a year, why will not the Government do the right thing and scrap these tolls altogether?

[Alun Cairns]

We have an election coming and the call from the Labour party is now very different—it is very convenient. It has long called for the devolution of the tolls, but we were fearful that, as soon as the tolls were devolved, they would be used as a cash cow to support the income of the Welsh Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He met the Business Secretary last week, and he and I have had several conversations about support for his constituents who depend on the plant, demonstrating its regional impact. The Government are determined to do everything possible to secure a long-term, viable future for the plant.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State well knows, at sites across Wales, such as Shotton, Llanwern, Orb, Trostre and Port Talbot, Tata steelworkers produce a whole range of specialist products. What assurances has he obtained from Tata that it will not siphon off the production of the most profitable lines to their plants aboard? What guarantees has he received that the intellectual property will remain with the Welsh operations in order to attract a suitable buyer and safeguard thousands of Welsh jobs?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the sale of the operations in the United Kingdom, which demonstrates the positive engagement between the UK Government and Tata Steel that has resulted in its decision to sell off all its operations, rather than simply to dispose of what some might see as the more profitable assets.

Macur Review

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.

The horrific abuse that was carried out at care homes in north Wales has shocked us all and our thoughts today must be with the survivors. Not only did they endure violence from those who were meant to protect them, but they have had to wait years—decades—to be heard.

I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) who has campaigned tirelessly for the survivors ever since these allegations came to light. As she has highlighted before, some of those who were abused at Bryn Estyn and other homes have since taken their own lives. It is therefore right that we think of their families today and of everyone affected by this scandal.

The extent of the abuse revealed by the Waterhouse inquiry was staggering. It found evidence of “widespread and persistent” physical and sexual abuse, including multiple rapes carried out against young boys and girls. This abuse was allowed to take place over many years, sometimes decades, in the very homes where vulnerable children should have felt safe. The scale of the abuse is shocking, but what is also shocking is that many of the inquiries into this abuse have encountered a reluctance to co-operate with them, and a refusal to publish their conclusions—in short, cover-ups and missed opportunities.

As the Secretary of State has indicated, the Macur review was

“set up to examine whether any specific allegations of child abuse falling within the terms of reference of the Waterhouse Inquiry were not investigated.”

On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to extend our thanks to Lady Justice Macur and her review team for the work that they have undertaken. In the light of what has happened to previous reports and the overwhelming need for transparency, I welcome the fact that the Macur review has now been published.

There may be cases where redactions are needed, not least to ensure that no ongoing police investigation is compromised, but these redactions must be as few as possible and they must be justified to the survivors. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this review, along with the many other reports on and inquiries into abuse in north Wales, will be made available in full to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and that this inquiry will be able to see full, unredacted copies of these reports?

The Waterhouse inquiry found that most children did not feel able to come forward to report what had happened to them. The few who did were discouraged from taking matters further. In fact, were it not for the bravery of whistleblower Alison Taylor, many cases of abuse would not have been uncovered. Although we recognise that processes for safeguarding children have changed radically since many of these cases took place, we must always be ready to learn lessons to ensure that we can protect children better in the future.

Having studied the report, what changes in policy or practice do the Government feel are necessary? What steps will they take to ensure a co-ordinated response to any future cases, wherever they occur—in the public, private or third sector? Does the Secretary of State believe that there is sufficient protection for whistleblowers such as Alison Taylor?

We know that physical and sexual abuse has a lasting impact on the lives of those affected. In recent years, many survivors have felt able to come forward and report the abuse that they experienced. Indeed, we know that a number of people contacted the Children’s Commissioner for Wales following the announcement of the review, and it is possible that others will come forward as a result of the report’s publication. No matter how long ago the abuse took place, survivors need support to rebuild their lives. What support is being given to the survivors of abuse who have come forward, and what conversations has the Secretary of State had with agencies, including the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, to ensure that survivors of abuse know where to turn?

The scale of the abuse that has become apparent in recent years has shocked the whole of society. It is now clear that many thousands of children were targeted by predatory abusers in places where they should have felt safe. Far too many of those children were let down for a second time when they reached out for help, but nothing was done. Our duty is to make sure that survivors of abuse are heard and listened to, that those who report abuse are given sufficient protection, and that anyone who is responsible for acts of violence against children is brought to justice. Above all, we must ensure that this appalling abuse can never be allowed to happen again.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response to the statement, and for the spirit and tone in which she made it. I join her in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for her long-standing work in trying to achieve justice not only for her constituents who suffered abuse, but for the wider number of care home residents at the time.

When we discussed this issue during a recent session of Wales Office questions, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley asked me about the redactions. I gave her a commitment that everything possible would be done to ensure that they were kept to a minimum, and that we would be able to explain the reasons for them fully. As I said in my statement, I believe that the letters that we have published along with the report set out those reasons very clearly, but I suggest that Members read Lady Justice Macur’s remarks in the report urging caution in relation to the publication of the names of individuals in the various categories that she describes. I hope that those explanations will provide ample justification for the redactions.

The hon. Lady asked whether we would make a full, unredacted version of the report available to the independent Goddard inquiry. The answer is yes, absolutely. We have also made a full, unredacted copy available to the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Operations Pallial, Hydrant and Orarian.

The hon. Lady asked about changes in policy and practice, and about looking to the future. As I said in my statement, Lady Justice Macur has made a number of specific asks of the Government. She has asked for changes to be made, and made recommendations about, in particular, the way in which material is stored and archived. That is one of the weaknesses that she found in establishing her inquiry after 2012, when it was set up. She referred to the “disarray” that many of the files were in. There are important lessons to be learned by Government as a whole—devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government—about the way in which sensitive material is archived and protected for the future. Those lessons have been and are being learnt.

As for the wider issue of how we support the survivors and victims of abuse, I think that there has been an enormous cultural change in the last 30 years in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. That is one of the reasons why more survivors now feel empowered to come forward as part of Operation Pallial, to relive those horrific events, and to make specific allegations, which are being pursued rigorously by the National Crime Agency.

The really positive developments that have taken place since the 1990s, including the establishment of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, show that as a society we have made a lot of progress. Of course we do not get everything right, and there is much more that we need to learn to do, but we have made a lot of progress over the past 30 years on the way in which we support victims of sexual abuse and address this issue. I do not wish to sound complacent in any way, however, and indeed there is no sense of complacency in Lady Justice Macur’s report that we are publishing today. I hope that that addresses the hon. Lady’s specific question.

The hon. Lady also asked what support was being provided through the independent Goddard inquiry. The inquiry will shortly open an office in Cardiff to reach out to survivors in Wales, and it will work through the mediums of English and Welsh.

Welsh Affairs

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this important St David’s day debate, and on his work to champion the steel industry. Today he mentioned not just the steel industry, but the need for clear and consistent messages from the UK Government if we are to encourage more investment from a range of different industries.

The right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) emphasised the importance of transport links to the economy of north Wales. That theme was taken up by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) who suggested the need to upgrade the busy M6, and to think beyond Crewe for HS2 so that it serves Chester and north Wales. Along with other Members he stressed the importance of staying in the EU, particularly for the success of big companies such as Airbus, as well as a host of other companies in his constituency and over the border.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) reminded us that Gordon Brown was right in keeping the UK out of the euro, and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) made a strong case for the EU, mentioning peace, political stability, social justice, economic matters, and the fairer distribution of resources from which Wales benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) explained why it is important to campaign for proper links to Heathrow airport and to support its expansion, and he made a strong case for the need for better rail electrification to Wales. He also referred to the Wales Bill, and the fact that the Secretary of State was not here.

The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) spoke of the Cardiff city deal, as one would expect, and of the importance of interesting young people in science and innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) spoke of the Wales Bill and thanked the Welsh Affairs Committee for all its hard work on that. He also pointed out some of the considerable problems with the Bill. The hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies) mentioned the importance of the cockle industry and of getting to grips with the causes of those cockle deaths. We must get more information so that we better understand exactly what is happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) talked about the need to get on and secure the tidal lagoon project and the jobs for the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) also mentioned tidal power, referring to the eternal nature of the tide. He stressed again the importance of the Welsh language. My predecessor as Llanelli MP, Jim Griffiths, was the first Secretary of State for Wales. I know he would very much have approved of my hon. Friend’s speech today.

How could I possibly skip over what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said about the Severn bridge tolls? That issue is absolutely crucial for us across the whole of south Wales. She emphasised the point about the end of the concession. When is it happening and what will the reduction in price be? We want something much more substantial than the mere reduction in VAT.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) mentioned dairy farming. I am sure he will be supporting the farmers’ march in London on 23 March. We shall certainly be speaking with one voice with them on the need to increase the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to get a fairer price for our farmers. He also spoke of how the ground rose up around St David, propelling him above the crowd. We wondered today whether the Secretary of State is showing himself as a reverse St David, disappearing into the earth and appearing for only a few minutes at today’s debate—that is utterly disgraceful, I have to say. This comes in the week when he has treated the House with complete disdain by announcing a major U-turn on the Wales Bill at a press conference in Cardiff and refusing to come to the House to answer questions. Does the Secretary of State for Wales not think that a debate on Welsh affairs and the Wales Bill are worthy of his time?

I can only assume that the reason the Secretary of State is hiding in the Wales Office is that he is as embarrassed as he should be that his flagship constitutional Bill has run aground. What we saw on Monday was quite remarkable: large parts of the Bill that the Secretary of State was defending to the hilt just last month have now been binned. This amounts to a major change in policy in the one piece of proposed legislation for which his Department is responsible. It is shameful that he was more than happy to take questions from journalists but not from Members of this House whose constituents deserve to know what powers their Assembly will have. The Wales Office even tweeted on Monday to suggest that MPs should be happy to wait until today’s Backbench debate to have their say. I hope he is listening.

It is a shocking discourtesy to Members and is reminiscent of the arrogance the Secretary of State has shown towards the Welsh Government and to those who have disagreed with him. Let us not forget that shortly before we met at the Welsh Grand Committee, he said those of us who dared to challenge his rosy view of the Bill had given up on the Union. We were told that we had basically gone and joined Plaid Cymru because we suggested that the necessity test should go, the rules on ministerial consent should change and that the list of reservations should be drastically reduced. Now, he apparently agrees with us. Has the Secretary of State had a last-minute conversion to the separatist cause, or does he recognise that his hysterical comments were just a desperate attempt to deflect from the shambles of his draft Bill?

I am glad the Secretary of State has seen sense and will not now push ahead with a deeply flawed piece of proposed legislation, but let us not pretend that all this is business as usual. It is not a normal part of pre-legislative scrutiny to then go on and dump the Bill, and nor is this an example of a Secretary of State in listening mode. He wanted and fully intended to go ahead with a Bill that was complex, unworkable and which rolled back the powers of the Welsh Assembly. He only changed course when it became clear that literally no one supported him.

The Welsh Affairs Committee, with its Conservative majority, has produced an excellent report on the draft Bill. I would like to place on record my thanks to the members of that Committee for all their hard work. Their report, like the report of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee before it, shows that the Secretary of State has mismanaged the process from start to finish. Instead of producing a Bill with a robust set of reserved powers, he allowed Whitehall free rein to decide which powers it thought Wales should have. That resulted in 34 pages of reservations, covering 267 areas. How could the Secretary of State possibly have thought that this was the clear and lasting devolution settlement that he himself promised? We are now told he wants to reduce and simplify the reservations, but why did he not do that to start with? Is it because he did not actually know what was in his own Bill? How else can he explain saying to the Welsh Affairs Committee:

“When I read through the list of reservations I can see for myself that there are things where I think, you know, ‘For goodness’ sake, why is that being held back as reserved?’”?

We have a Secretary of State who did not do his job. He did not make sure that the draft Bill was fit to be published, and that is what has led to this wholly unacceptable state of affairs. We are told that the Bill will now be presented sometime in the next Session, but there are reports that this current Session of Parliament will run until after the European referendum. That means we will not see the Bill until July at the very earliest, with a real possibility that it will slip into the autumn.

So in the Secretary of State’s absence—well, I see him here now and perhaps he will listen—will the Minister respond for him and tell us when he expects the Bill to be published and when its provisions will take effect? Is it not the case that the Assembly will now have to wait even longer before having these powers devolved to it, because of this avoidable delay? In light of the Welsh Affairs Committee’s stinging criticism of the fact that

“the final Bill will be significantly different”

to that which they have been scrutinising, will the new Bill be submitted to the Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny?

I cannot help feeling that if the Secretary of State had spent less time attacking those of us who disagreed with him and more time fixing his Bill, this unnecessary delay could have been avoided. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to produce a Bill that delivers the powers he promised, but his abysmal record so far hardly fills me with confidence.

On Monday, the Secretary of State also made reference to the Barnett funding floor, which we Labour Members welcome, although we recognise that it makes virtually no difference at a time when the Government are cutting the budget of the Welsh Assembly. In light of recent argument about a fiscal framework for Scotland, we now need to establish a framework for Wales that will underpin our future funding arrangements for the long term. The Smith Commission made it clear that Scotland should suffer no detriment from the transfer of tax-varying powers to Holyrood. It is imperative that the same principle is used in relation to Wales and that any arrangement is subject to review to ensure that it provides a stable financial settlement. Can the Minister update us on what progress has been made?

The Secretary of State and I have our differences, but I think we agree that we want to move past the debate about the process of devolution. We need a Bill that establishes a strong, fair and lasting settlement that achieves what the Welsh people want—a Welsh Assembly, a Welsh Parliament with the powers to make a real difference to the lives of people of Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend, who chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee, has been persistent and effective in raising concerns about the burden imposed on businesses and motorists in Wales by the very high tolls on the Severn bridge. We have not made any final decisions about what will happen when the private sector concession ends at the end of 2017, but we and the Treasury will be very keen to hear any specific ideas that he and members of his Committee might have.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Last year, the Secretary of State said his ambition was to secure more balanced growth in the Welsh economy, but on his watch we are seeing the loss of hundreds of jobs in our strategically important steel industry. The Government are being painfully slow to heed our warnings on cutting energy costs, and weak and disingenuous when it comes to standing up to Chinese dumping. With EU backing given in December, how much longer will the Government delay the energy compensation package the steel industry in Wales so desperately needs?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am really disappointed by the slightly tribal and partisan tone the shadow Secretary of State adopts on this issue. If she wants to talk about what has happened to steel jobs under Conservative and Labour Governments, I am happy to do that, and we can talk about the decline in steel jobs on the watch of previous Labour Governments. I am much more interested in getting answers now to the global storm facing the steel industry. This Government have taken a lead in Europe in changing procurement rules and arguing for protection measures against Chinese dumping. We are making sure that the steel industry in Wales has the best possible chance of a sustainable and profitable future.

[Nia Griffith]

The Government also have a key role in commissioning large infrastructure projects, which can boost manufacturing and rebalance the economy. Manufacturers across Wales, who are gearing up in earnest to supply the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, share my deep concern that the Government are now planning a lengthy review, which could scupper the project altogether. Will the Secretary of State now give us an unequivocal guarantee that this vital project will not be sunk by his Government?

[Stephen Crabb]

I notice that the shadow Secretary of State did not stand up and welcome what we saw yesterday—Her Majesty the Queen naming and opening the new Elizabeth Crossrail line, which, by the way, uses 50,000 tonnes of steel made in Wales by Celsa Steel. The hon. Lady should be absolutely welcoming that as a good example of how UK infrastructure investment can drive growth in the steel industry. On the tidal lagoon review, the chief executive of the Swansea tidal lagoon has welcomed it himself. He welcomes the fact that we are looking into this and exploring all options to see whether the project can be financially viable.

Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to take me down a road that we are not going down today. On the earlier point of his intervention, as I said to the Welsh Affairs Committee and to the Assembly’s Committee, we will be using this process to look again at some of the details and I have listed three broad areas that we are looking at: reservations, ministerial consents and the necessity test. My purpose today is to remind Members from Wales, who perhaps have not participated in the Welsh Affairs Committee proceedings or followed what the Assembly Committee has been saying, of some of the broad principles behind our approach to what is a really complicated and difficult issue.

The second bit of what I regard as a new, emerging orthodoxy in Cardiff Bay is this: they believe that the Welsh Government and the National Assembly should have completely unfettered freedom to legislate in devolved areas. They believe that they should have complete freedom in those policy areas that are clearly the competence of the Welsh Government. That is a proposition I agree with and am very comfortable with. I want the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly to exercise their law-making powers freely. I do not agree with what they then go on to say about these law-making powers—that when Welsh legislation has a spillover effect in affecting reserved matters, in affecting the law as it applies to England or in the way it affects the underlying principles of English and Welsh law—the single jurisdiction—somehow the Welsh Government should have the unfettered ability to make changes in those areas.

That is what the necessity test in this Bill is designed to do—not to stop the Assembly enforcing its legislation, but to make clear where the boundaries of their competence lie. However, this test has now become a point of warfare because they do not believe there should be any boundary or safeguard to those powers. When I put the question to them—when I asked the Presiding Officer and Carwyn Jones why the Welsh Assembly should have unfettered ability to make law without having any regard to the impacts on England or on reserved matters—I simply got a shrug of the shoulders in response. That is not a proposition that we can endorse.

The Bill is not designed to serve the agendas of those who believe that the next stage of devolution should be about driving a wedge between England and Wales and creating more separation. The purpose of the Bill is to provide clarity and to ensure that the two legitimate Governments for Wales, the UK Government and the Welsh Government, can work together in clarity so that Ministers in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster understand which areas of policy they are responsible for.

The answer to the complexities around this is not, as the First Minister now suggests, to create a separate legal jurisdiction. A separate jurisdiction would be expensive, unnecessary and, in the words of a partner of a major law firm in Cardiff, would result in a flight of legal talent from Wales. Let us be clear. If the Labour party had won the general election and had taken forward a devolution Bill, it would not be entertaining the creation of a separate jurisdiction.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. The First Minister has not advocated a separate legal jurisdiction. He has talked of a distinct legal jurisdiction, as indeed have the Constitutional Affairs Committee at the Assembly and all the Members of the Assembly, including all the Conservative Members, and that was backed in a motion at the Assembly.

[The Chair]

That is not a point of order, but it is very welcome and I am sure the Secretary of State will want to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.

The draft Wales Bill has understandably led to lively debate since it was published in October. I asked the Secretary of State to convene this Committee so that Members could be part of that debate, and to scrutinise the draft Bill before a new version is presented to the House. The draft Bill is the end product of some five years of work including the Silk Commission, the St David’s day process, and the Government’s White Paper. We expected a draft Bill that was worthy of the years of work that led up to it—a landmark constitutional moment giving more powers to Wales. Instead, we have a shambles of a draft Bill that has been criticised by academics, trade unions, lawyers, the Assembly’s Presiding Officer, the Church in Wales, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Welsh Language Society and every party in the Assembly, including the Welsh Conservatives. In fact, when the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee launched its inquiry on the draft Bill, it was left in the unprecedented situation where practically no one supported it.

A new report by University College London and the Wales Governance Centre describes the draft Bill as

“constricting, clunky, inequitable and constitutionally short-sighted.”

In plain English, it is junk. The Secretary of State should be ashamed that he has presented such a weak and unworkable draft Bill because the people of Wales deserve better.

Labour Members support a move to a reserved powers model, which Silk recommended, and we support the new powers proposed in the Bill on energy, transport and the Assembly’s own affairs. Labour set up the Assembly and gave it greater powers through the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the 2011 referendum. We support the Assembly’s having more powers, and that is exactly why we will not support this Bill unless it is radically amended.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment as shadow Secretary of State. I am absolutely delighted by that appointment, but can she explain why, as the Secretary of State said, the biggest roadblock during the St David’s day process was the Labour party? I understand that she was not in those negotiations, but is she entirely happy with the position taken by her predecessor?

[Nia Griffith]

Today’s subject is the Bill before us, and we want a Bill that actually works, so that is what we need to scrutinise now; that is what we need to be looking at.

Just last year, the Secretary of State said:

“I want to establish a clear devolution settlement for Wales which stands the test of time.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2015; Vol. 593, c. 35WS.]

Elsewhere, he referred to

“a clear, robust and lasting devolution settlement”.

We have only to take one look at this Bill and it is plain that he has completely failed to do that. The Bill as drafted is not clear. It does not meet the Secretary of State’s stated aims. Those are not just my words; they are also those of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, chaired, incidentally, by a Conservative Assembly Member. Its inquiry heard

“grave concerns about the complexity of the draft Bill”

from the

“overwhelming majority of…consultees and witnesses”.

It heard

“a clear, unanimous voice from legal experts and practitioners that the complexities of this Bill will lead to references to the Supreme Court.”

This Government have been particularly trigger happy in taking the Assembly to court ever since it has had primary law-making powers. Those cases cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds and lead to long delays before the Assembly’s laws come into force.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill decision drove a coach and horses through the Government of Wales Act and in effect conferred a reserved powers model on the Assembly, which requires legislation to address the issues that arose out of that case?

[Nia Griffith]

An awful lot more cases will go to the Supreme Court if we do not get this Bill correct. That is the problem. The Assembly has passed 14 Bills, parts of which various commentators are suggesting could not have been passed if this legislation had been in place. The fact that they are arguing over that is the reason why we would end up with people—not just the UK Government or the Welsh Government, but any individual—taking things to the Supreme Court, and thousands of pounds would be spent trying to sort that out. That is simply not the way we want to proceed.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the logic of English votes for English laws was that there would be Welsh votes for Welsh laws and that the direction of travel of this Bill is in fact English votes for Welsh laws? That will generate all sorts of confusion, some of which has just been alluded to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

The issue is, more than anything, the confusion. Everybody wants a clear settlement that will not cause problems. I am not the only one saying this. David Melding, the Conservative Assembly Member for South Wales Central, warns:

“Judicial review could become, if not the norm, then far from the exception. Welsh legislation would be drafted in an atmosphere of profound uncertainty, which itself would curtail its scope and ambition.”

Therefore, the Secretary of State has comprehensively failed his first test—clarity.

If the Secretary of State had really wanted to make the devolution settlement clearer, he could easily have reduced the number of tests that the Assembly has to satisfy before it can legislate. Those are the tests that decide whether a Bill is within the Assembly’s competence. This Bill increases them from nine to 13. Of course, the most controversial, understandably, are the so-called necessity tests. Quite why those tests were dreamt up is not clear. What is clear is that they will make it significantly harder for the Assembly to legislate. That is not just my view, but that of Paul Davies, the Tory Assembly Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire—a colleague from the same constituency as the Secretary of State. He said that

“it’s clear from the evidence...that introducing these tests would restrict the Assembly’s competence.”

As the Law Society said in its evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, “necessity” is not a term that is well understood by lawyers. It does not have an established meaning. In fact, the Assembly’s Director of Legal Services has pointed out that there are at least three completely different ways in which the term “necessity” can be understood. Quite frankly, it could mean anything, and the only way to establish what it means will be through reference to the Supreme Court, which is profoundly undemocratic.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. The word “necessity” is not a term of science nor is it even a term of art. Nevertheless, does she not agree that it is entirely right that the Assembly should not legislate in areas that are beyond its defined competence, so a term has to be arrived at that achieves that?

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. There have to be certain consents and criteria, but our difficulty with the Bill is that it does not provide the clarity that we all want in legislation.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady just said. Is she saying therefore that she supports the retention of some kind of test, whether that is necessity or some other formula, or does she want to remove it altogether?

[Nia Griffith]

Our worry is that we might turn the clock back to a time pre-2006. The purpose of the Bill is to define powers, but what we have at the moment is confusing. That confusion has arisen for several reasons, but particularly with regard to the non-devolution of certain parts of the law.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West, she appeared to say that we clearly need some kind of test. Is it her view, and the view of her party, that, whether it is the necessity test or another formula that commands legal respect, we need some kind of boundary or legal phrasing in the Bill, rather than no test at all?

[Nia Griffith]

We need a framework that successfully explains to people what it actually is, not one that is confused and suggests, for example, that we might be looking at Bills that have been passed in the Assembly such as the Renting Homes (Wales) Bill.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady has made strong points about the need for clarity by posing a specific question, which she now appears to have muddied. Does she support having some kind of test around the spillover impact when the Welsh Government make law that affects reserved areas, England, and civil and criminal law? Does she support having some kind of test within the framework?

[Nia Griffith]

There has to be some sort of framework to define exactly where the Welsh Government can legislate. What we do not want is a situation where we continually dispute that, as that would not help.

[Mr David Jones]

I am grateful for the direction of travel that the hon. Lady is taking. Will she perhaps suggest a term that could be used to achieve the clarity that she desires?

[Nia Griffith]

It is for the Secretary of State to produce a Bill with some form of words that explains exactly how and when the Assembly can legislate. We want to see that in the Bill in a way that will actually work. At the moment, we have turned the clock back, and it looks as if we are asking for many different types of consent. We do not have clarity, but that is what we need. We have a situation where even Bills that have been passed will be contested.

[Mr David Jones]

rose—

[Nia Griffith]

I will not give way any more. It is for the Secretary of State to introduce better legislation. It is simply undemocratic to go continually to the Supreme Court, because it is not for judges to decide this, that or the other about what can be subject to legislation. We want legislation that makes the position clear, rather than having to go to court time after time.

The real problem is the sense that we are going back pre-2006, and rolling back things that have been introduced by the Assembly in the past few years. The Welsh Government have listed no fewer than 14 Acts in this Assembly’s term that would require additional permission from Whitehall if the Bill were in force. The Secretary of State has said that this is all about respect, but where is the respect in making it harder for the democratically elected Assembly to pass laws? The people of Wales did not vote in 1997 and 2011 for a Welsh Assembly hamstrung by Whitehall, able to legislate but only when UK Ministers allowed it. That completely undermines the autonomy of the Assembly and is a major step backwards. As Conservative Assembly Member David Melding has highlighted, that ends with the constitutionally unacceptable position of UK Ministers, who are not accountable to Assembly Members, telling the Assembly what it can and cannot do.

Of course, ministerial consent exists under the current system, but if the Secretary of State really wants to clarify and simplify the settlement, he would clear up the consent process. As the Silk Commission recommended, there should be general transfer of ministerial functions in devolved areas from Whitehall to Cardiff Bay, just as happened in the Scotland Act. The Secretary of State has given no good reason why Wales should be treated any worse than Scotland.

The Bill would make the system significantly more complicated, with the effect of rolling back the Assembly’s powers. In the words of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee:

“It is clear to us that the cumulative effect of the approach being adopted…is to reduce the Assembly’s legislative competence.”

Yet again the Bill would fail to deliver a fair and lasting settlement. Instead, it would take powers away from Wales and make it harder for the Assembly to do its job.

Let us turn to the reservations themselves. A primary purpose of the Bill is to introduce a reserved powers model, in order to bring greater clarity to the devolution settlement. The Silk Commission report says:

“In a reserved powers model, the settlement would set out clearly the limits of devolved competence. We would expect law-makers to legislate with greater confidence…rather than being constrained by uncertainty”.

Clarity is about the last thing that comes to mind when reading the 34 pages of reservations in the Bill, covering 267 separate powers, on everything from Antarctica to zebra crossings. Everyone agrees that the list is far too long. Indeed, Angela Burns, the Conservative Assembly Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, has described the list as unworkable. She said:

“The reservations, as they stand, will hinder the development of policy, will impact on the coherence and unity of legislation and will, in my view, muddy the waters between legislatures.”

Even the Secretary of State has said:

“When I read through the list of reservations I can see for myself that there are things where I think, you know, ‘For goodness’ sake, why is that being held back as reserved?’”

It is his Bill.

[Stephen Crabb]

Draft Bill.

[Nia Griffith]

As a bare minimum, we should expect the Secretary of State to have confidence in his own draft legislation, not to rush forward with some half-baked set of reservations that not even he supports.

The failure of the Wales Office to challenge Departments to explain what needs to be reserved, not just what they want to have reserved, is quite remarkable. In the words of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee:

“The absence of a principled approach has contributed to the excessive number and complexity of the reservations.”

In this week’s report by the Wales Governance Centre and University College London, they describe the failure to think rationally about what needs to be reserved as a “fundamental defect” in the Bill.

Perhaps if the Secretary of State and his Department commanded more respect in Whitehall we would not have ended up with a shoddy list of reservations that literally no one supports.

The biggest problem with the reservations is the completely ill-advised decision to reserve the entirety of criminal and civil law. That makes absolutely no sense and is the clearest example of the Bill rolling back the Assembly’s powers. The Assembly is a law-making body, so preventing it from having any ability to change the law is both illogical and unacceptable. It reduces the status of the Assembly to a second-class legislature. It is directly contrary to the Silk Commission’s warning that the reserved powers model must

“do nothing to restrict the existing and future ability of the National Assembly to create criminal sanctions where it is necessary”.

The rationale behind the decision to reserve the entirety of the law is given in the explanatory notes. The Bill seeks to provide

“a general level of protection for the unified legal system of England and Wales, whilst allowing the Assembly some latitude to modify these areas of law”.

But the 2011 referendum was about giving the Assembly full powers to legislate in the areas devolved to it, not some latitude to modify the law. So the Secretary of State needs to reconsider this crucial aspect of the Bill. One solution would be to introduce a distinct legal jurisdiction for Wales, as recommended by the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and endorsed unanimously by the Assembly.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Since the hon. Lady is fond of quoting, will she comment on the view of Lord Morris of Aberavon, her predecessor and a Labour Attorney General, who ruled out the single jurisdiction? If she supports that, will she explain what she means by “distinct”? Does she have a simple term for it? What does it mean?

[Nia Griffith]

The term “distinct” has been used to suggest that we would not need to have separate courts, that lawyers could practise on both sides of the border—we would have, if you like, a separate book, separate legislation, but not a separate court system. As I just said, that is one solution that might be suggested; it is not the only solution. If the Secretary of State can show us what other plans he might have, perhaps he can bring forward something different, but it clearly needs to be looked at. We understand the problem; we have not yet had a solution from the Secretary of State.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

The hon. Lady has tried to define “distinct legal jurisdiction”, but the Presiding Officer in the Assembly, for example, has called for a high court of Wales. Does that fit the “distinct” model?

[Nia Griffith]

The “distinct” model does not have to have a separate high court: that is the whole point.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nia Griffith]

No; I think I have said enough on this. What we need from the Secretary of State is a solution, a way forward. We need a way to make it possible for the Assembly to legislate in the areas in which it has competence, which people voted for in 2011, not to make it more difficult. If we remember, the Secretary of State said he was going to deliver,

“the most robust and ambitious package of further devolution to Wales in a generation”.

However, it is pretty clear that the consents, the necessity test and the Bill in general would roll back the powers of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill is not robust, ambitious, lasting or clear. In fact, the Secretary of State has failed every one of his own tests. What he has proposed is a second-class settlement, a system that is unduly complex, regressive and unworkable, and we will not support the Bill unless it is radically amended. It is clear that the Secretary of State has badly mismanaged this entire process, including failing miserably to ensure the cross-party consensus that characterised both the Silk and Smith Commissions. In fact, he has not even got consensus within his own party.

[Hywel Williams]

I am listening to the hon. Lady with great interest. She seems to be batting into the Bill very hard indeed and criticising it. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr I think she repudiated the stance taken by her predecessor. Does she think there is a case to be made for reopening discussions between the parties on what the Bill should be, rather than the dog’s dinner that we have before us?

[Nia Griffith]

I would welcome the opportunity to have another look at how the Bill could work, but what I want to hear from the Secretary of State is a willingness to be more open about that, rather than digging this big trench around himself and saying that he is not going to change this, not going to change that, and not going to change the Bill radically.

[Stephen Crabb]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, because I am enjoying her speech a lot, but just to clarify, at no point have I said that I am not going to change this and not going to change that. She has put words in my mouth there. What I have said today is that there are areas of the Bill which we need to look at and change—I have said that very clearly—but also there are fundamental principles behind what we are trying to do, in ensuring the integrity of the UK Government and Parliament and the integrity of the Welsh Government and Assembly.

[Nia Griffith]

The problem is that we had the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire telling us that he may not even vote for the Bill; he describes it as an abysmal failure. We had the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd, for Brecon and Radnorshire, for Monmouth, and for Gower—I see he has left his place—and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West, all saying publicly that the income tax devolution that will be included in the final Bill is disrespectful to the Welsh people. So there is utter chaos on the Conservative Benches about the Bill. It is a remarkable situation.

[Mr David Jones]

I need to clarify the hon. Lady’s point. I did not say that I would oppose the devolution of taxation powers. What I said was that to impose such powers without a referendum of the Welsh people was, I felt, disrespectful to the people of Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

That is precisely my point.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In her excellent speech my hon. Friend gave a series of quotations from Conservative Assembly Members and Conservative Members of Parliament. We certainly need an amended Bill to reduce conflict over the Supreme Court, and we need an amended Bill to reduce conflict in the Conservative party.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend put that very well indeed —[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

[Nia Griffith]

It is remarkable that we have seen the entire Conservative group in the Assembly, including the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, supporting a series of motions that savage the Secretary of State’s Bill. I hope he will take the time to sort out this Bill, but his inability to convince even his own colleagues hardly fills me with confidence.

The Secretary of State said last year that it is vital that we get the Welsh devolution settlement right. For that to happen, the Bill needs a radical rewrite. It is not enough for the Wales Office just to go through the motions and tinker with it at the margins. Yes, we need fewer reservations; yes, we want an end to the necessity test; yes, ministerial consents must follow the Scottish system. But that is not enough to make this shoddy Bill work. Unless it is radically overhauled, Labour MPs will vote against it on Second Reading, not because we do not want the Assembly to have more powers, but for exactly the opposite reason. The Opposition will not vote for a Bill that deliberately rolls back the Assembly’s powers, makes it harder to pass laws and will almost certainly lead to thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money being wasted on legal challenges.

The Bill is not the clear and lasting settlement that the Secretary of State promised. It is not what the Welsh public voted for in the 2011 referendum. It is poorly drafted, unduly complicated and unworkable. The people of Wales deserve better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for championing the benefits of the northern powerhouse. What is clear is that business sees the benefits. Local authorities also see the benefits. We encourage the Welsh Government to engage positively, because business does not recognise the administrative boundaries between the two.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Government’s so-called northern powerhouse will bring no benefit to north Wales unless we see the much-needed investment in infrastructure that the Government have so far failed to deliver. When the Chancellor visited Broughton in July, he promised he would look at rail electrification in north Wales. Six months later, has anything happened?

[Alun Cairns]

Yes, a considerable amount has happened in relation to investment in north Wales. I mentioned the summit that was held last year. We are keen to develop the signalling needed to improve the railway lines. The North Wales Economic Ambition Board is delighted with the support we are giving. We are keen to develop that even further.

[Nia Griffith]

Let us hope that the Government can get on a bit quicker with the electrification than they are on the Great Western main line. North Wales also needs better rail links to Manchester airport. Arriva Trains Wales has proposed a direct service from Llandudno to the airport. Will the Minister explain why, instead of investing in greater capacity on routes to Manchester airport, his colleagues at the Department for Transport have rejected Arriva’s plan, supposedly in favour of extra trans-Pennine services? If the Secretary of State’s place at the Cabinet table counts for anything, what is he going to do about that?

[Alun Cairns]

I do not recognise the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. Significant discussions are going on between the Department for Transport, the Welsh Government, rail operators and other partners about remapping and the franchises. We will happily take positive representations on that