Brexit, devolution, the House of Lords & Waldo Williams
- Published
- comments
Amid the excitement of the passing of the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill in Cardiff, peers spent several hours debating legislation that may yet make it redundant.
Day nine of the committee stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill saw the first detailed debate on the UK government's proposed amendment to its own bill, an amendment designed to assure governments in Wales and Scotland that their fears of a "power grab" are groundless.
Speaking for the government, Advocate-General for Scotland Lord Keen said the amendment was "a substantial movement from our original position" and had effectively turned the controversial clause 11 on its head.
(New readers may want to know that the debate is about where power lies after Brexit - what happens to European powers in devolved areas such as farming once they return from Brussels. The UK government says the vast majority will go to Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast but some should be held at Westminster to preserve the UK single market.)
Lord Keen told peers: "I should be clear that the limits that would be applied by these powers are not new limits or constraints. They would merely preserve existing competence in relation to EU law after exit as it stood in relation to EU law immediately prior to exit.
"Therefore any decision that the devolved institutions could take before exit day will continue to be a decision that they can take after exit day in areas where they have exercised their powers. There is no encroachment into existing devolved areas, and of course in areas where we have not exercised these powers there will be an immediate and significant increase in the decision-making powers of the devolved institutions upon exit. I should also be clear that these limits apply to an area only to the extent it is covered by EU law and not to the entire subject matter."
Conservative former Scottish Secretary Lord Lang added his support: "There is no power grab in the measures proposed in the government amendment, quite the reverse; it is a power bonanza. The devolved administrations should welcome it as a ray of sunshine."
'Majority'
The "substantial movement" failed to appease the government's critics in a chamber where it doesn't have a majority. Lawyers in the Lords had a field day debating, among other things, the difference between "consult" and "consent".
Labour spokesman Lord Griffiths of Burry Port said the government's amendment was too weak. "What the Government have brought forward at this late stage is too weak. If the purpose is, as the Government claim, simply to give breathing space to negotiate new UK frameworks, which is fair enough, where it is agreed by the devolved administrations that these are necessary - that is an important part of it - then we should be sure that the devolved legislatures agree that these are indeed the policy areas where restrictions are needed. It does not seem to be very difficult to come to these conclusions."
Lord Griffiths borrowed from Waldo Williams to make his point: "Beth yw trefnu teyrnas? Crefft sydd eto'n cropian". He helpfully added a translation by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord [Rowan] Williams: "What is it to govern kingdoms? A skill still crawling on all fours."
Where might a compromise come from? Margaret Thatcher's former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, still going strong at 90, got a sympathetic hearing for his amendment that would create a group of ministers from the UK's four nations to decide which powers require a UK-wide approach.
This being the House of Lords, there were no votes. They will come at a later stage. As expected, the government withdrew its own amendment "to reflect seriously on the points made". Further talks will be held with ministers from Wales and Scotland before the Lords revisits the issue - and votes on it - after the Easter break.
You can read Wednesday night's debate here, external.