I was very glad to play a minor part in the St David’s day process, as was my colleague at the time, Elfyn Llwyd. I think there was a structural deficiency in that process, in that if individual parties wanted to veto a particular matter, they could do so—fine: that was what the process was about—but, to my mind at least, one party made rather a meal of that dispensation, and vetoed a great deal that could quite reasonably have been included. The criticism of the first draft of the Bill reflects that, but the current version is a great improvement, and I am happy to pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his predecessor for their achievement.
Some parties compromised on policing, and some on broadcasting. My party compromised on energy. We have always believed that Wales’s natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Wales, and that the people of Wales are best placed to make decisions about how best to put those resources to use. That is our historic stance. We have never believed in placing a limit on that principle, above which the people of Wales should no longer have a say. We never thought that that was a good idea, and never thought that it was necessary. However, we compromised, for the good of the Silk process and to ensure good order and progress. We agreed to the arbitrary limit of 350 MW in return for the support of others on policing and broadcasting.
The Secretary of State has chosen not to follow that consensual path, and to pick and choose from the Silk Commission’s recommendations which matters to accept and which to forgo. Indeed, he has chosen to ignore the majority of what Silk had to say. He cannot now reasonably defend that Westminster power grab and attack Plaid Cymru by claiming that he is only following the commission’s recommendations. We shall see what the Under-Secretary of State has to say about that one.
Clause 36 must be understood as it stands. Having voted to give Scotland complete control over its natural resources, with no limits, the Secretary of State is proposing to devolve energy in Wales only up to a limit of 350 MW, with anything above that threshold being reserved to Westminster. Why does he believe that Scottish natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Scotland, but Wales’s natural resources, above the limit, should be deemed to be the preserve of Westminster? Does he think that the people of Wales cannot be trusted with any energy projects above 350 MW? Do we suffer from some congenital infirmity in that respect? For that matter, why should it be 350 MW rather than 351, or 349? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will enlighten us. What factual evidence has he to justify that figure?
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) referred to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. It is proposed that the lagoon should be devolved to Wales, but that the proposed Cardiff and Colwyn Bay tidal lagoons, which are identical apart from scale, should be reserved to Westminster. What is the rhyme or reason for that? What practical reasons are there for such a distinction?
Let me give another practical example. In my constituency, there is a great capacity for hydro-electric power. The Dinorwig scheme, which has been mentioned, is a massive scheme that can power Manchester for five hours at the throwing of a switch. It takes eight seconds for the turbines to start turning. It is an astonishing scheme, which I think is one of the great energy production secrets of Wales. I understand that the switch is thrown in Connah’s Quay and not in London, and that it controls not only Dinorwig but the Stwlan facility in Blaenau Ffestiniog, as well as Maentwrog. So here we have an astonishingly good scheme and the potential for several more, some of the same scale but also some smaller ones.
8 pm
A smaller scheme was proposed just outside Llanberis. The proposers came to see me and said that they were going to restrict it to 49 MW. When I asked them why they said that if it was 51 MW, it would get entangled in the processes down in Whitehall. When I met them recently they said that they are now proposing 350 MW. I asked why not 351 MW, and they said, “Because it would get entangled in the processes down in Whitehall.” That is a clear example.
I will give one further example that illustrates this point. When foot and mouth disease was active in Wales, I wrote to the Welsh Minister and the Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the autumn movement of livestock scheme. I got a reply from Cardiff within two weeks, and one in May—it was about the autumn movement of livestock scheme—from London. That is the sort of problem these people thought they might be struggling with. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider his position on this limit, and unless he comes up with a plausible answer, we will seek leave to divide the House on amendment 74.
Clause 38 is of course linked to clause 36, which we are seeking to amend, and we disagree with Government amendments 47 to 49 because they seek to add the 350 MW limit to clause 38. I welcome clause 39 which devolves power over onshore wind to Wales, but we are
not supportive of amendments 158 to 160, which seek to give the UK Government a veto. I do not think we need to spend too much time explaining why that is an unacceptable proposal. Members who have put their names to those amendments are well known for their opposition, which I respect and understand, but I disagree fundamentally with them.
While we welcome clause 46 which requires the Secretary of State to consult with Welsh Ministers before establishing or amending a renewable energy scheme as it relates to Wales, we fully support the amendment from the official Opposition which proposes that the Secretary of State should obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers rather than simply consult them. So we would support amendments 130 and 131 and 132. I do not know if it is the intention of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to press those amendments, but our support would be there.
Clauses 48 and 49 are welcome, but we are concerned about Government amendment 60, which again tries to impose this arbitrary limit of 350 MW on the Assembly’s competence. We welcome clause 22, which devolves some aspects of road transport, including speed limits, and likewise we welcome clauses 26 and 27 which devolve some responsibility over bus services and taxi regulation respectively.
I shall now turn to clause 28 and amendment 81, which amends clause 44. Clause 44 refers to sections 114 and 152 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which gives the Secretary of State for Wales a veto over any Acts or measures of the Assembly that might have a serious adverse impact on water quality or supply in England. This has been referred to in earlier debates. While the expectation was that this Bill would remove these sections from the Government of Wales Act, in fact it seems to extend the power of veto to cover sewerage services in England.
These sections embody the peculiar notion that Wales is somehow incapable of managing its own resources. Once again, it is exclusive to the Welsh settlement. Neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have such powers, so why must the Secretary of State for Wales have a veto over Welsh water? It makes Wales a special case—a lesser case. It continues and entrenches the status of Wales in Westminster. It protects the legality of English exploitation of Welsh resources, and avoids recognition of what was referred to earlier as a shameful past. I need not go into the history of the drowning of Capel Celyn in 1965, in which the entire community in that part of rural Wales was flooded, but such events remain perfectly legal. Removing sections 114 and 152 from the Government of Wales Act, as amendment 81 would do, would at long last ensure that the actions of this Parliament in 1965 could never be repeated. I will seek to divide the House on amendment 81, as I believe it is of particular importance to the people of Wales. For the same reasons, if called, we will be supporting amendments 125 and 126 tabled by the official Opposition, which seek to achieve the same aim.
Needless to say, we will not be supporting clause 44 stand part. We welcome Clauses 45, 47 and 50. If called, we will support Opposition amendments 144 to 147.
Amendment 82 tabled by Plaid Cymru would ensure that when exercising the power to amend, repeal, revoke or modify any Acts or measures of the National Assembly
for Wales, the Secretary of State must seek the permission of the National Assembly as well as both Houses of Parliament. Amendments 150 to 154, in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, are similar to amendment 82, but introduce separate provisions for the amendment, repeal or revocation of Acts of Parliament, Assembly primary legislation and Assembly subordinate legislation. They provide that where the Secretary of State uses the power in clause 51 to make regulations that amend or repeal an Assembly Act or Assembly measure, the regulations must be approved by the affirmative procedure in the Assembly as well as each House of Parliament. They make similar provision in respect of the Secretary of State using the power in clause 51 to make regulations that amend or revoke subordinate legislation made by Welsh Ministers or the Assembly. These regulations would be subject to the negative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure. They also provide that the Assembly would have no role where the power in clause 51 was used to make regulations that amend or repeal an Act of Parliament or amend or revoke non-Assembly subordinate legislation.
We would be happy to support Government amendments 59, 50 and 51, but we do not see why the Secretary of State should make an exception in respect of when the clause 17 functions of Welsh Ministers should come into force. Why should everything else come into force two months after Royal Assent, but for clause 17 we will have to wait until the Secretary of State says so? Perhaps the Under-Secretary might explain.
We agree with Opposition amendment 12, which is linked with new clause 6, to extend the Welsh Government’s borrowing capacity. It is absolutely right that the Welsh Government should have fiscal levers at their disposal to facilitate economic growth in all corners of our country—and, I stress, all corners not just in the heartlands of south-east Wales.
Plaid Cymru has taken this Bill extremely seriously. We have tabled a great number of amendments. We shall press two amendments to a vote this evening and, with leave, new clause 2 if there is sufficient time. I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary’s response.