7. Legislative Consent Motion on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 4:40 pm on 8 December 2020.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jeremy Miles Jeremy Miles Labour 4:40, 8 December 2020

I would like, if I may, just to pay tribute to the way in which peers from across the House have been willing to work with us to mount a sterling defence of the devolution settlement, which the UK Government seems willing to trash. In particular, I would like to thank Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, Lord Wigley and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, as well as the Labour opposition and Liberal Democrat front benches.

Despite these efforts, it seems certain that the Bill that will be presented for Royal Assent in a few days' time will be deeply damaging to this Senedd and to our nation. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee and the Finance Committee have all recognised in their reports the deeply damaging impact of this Bill on devolution, to the extent that the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee have broken with their precedent to recommend that the Senedd should not give its consent.

Let me give just five reasons why, as a Government, we believe every Member of this Senedd should vote against giving legislative consent. Here, I'd like in particular to address my comments to the Conservative benches. Firstly, why would any Member of this Senedd elected to take decisions on devolved matters that reflect the views of those who elect them agree to legislation that neuters their ability to do just that? The market access principles mean that any product can be legally sold that is legally sold in any part of the UK; whether or not it complies with standards here in Wales, it must be able to be put on the market here. We cannot even demand that it be labelled differently.

This is not just about hypothetical instances. As Members will be aware, we have recently consulted on banning nine types of single-use plastic in Wales. We've not yet completed the analysis of the responses, so I won't prejudge matters, but if we did decide—or the new Government in the new Senedd term, more likely—that they wished to do so, that could not meaningfully happen if this Bill is enacted.

Let me quote the Government Minister, Lord True, in the House of Lords only two weeks ago: 

'New restrictions on the sale of goods, including goods made from plastic produced in or imported into one part of the UK, will be subject to the mutual recognition principle for goods unless an exclusion...applies.'

'goods...sold lawfully elsewhere in the United Kingdom will not be denied access to other parts of the UK market unless an exclusion applies. Consumers are of course not required to buy them.'

Rather avoiding the point that for consumers to make choices they need information, and the restrictions against labelling in the Bill would, of course, prevent that.

Secondly, consider the financial assistance powers that have been shoehorned into the Bill, the only thing they have in common with the remaining parts being that they reflect the same intent of undermining devolution. The Finance Committee eloquently articulated serious concerns about these provisions. They would enable UK Ministers to fund interventions in Wales in wholly devolved policy areas in ways that go around, or even run completely contrary to, the political agenda set by the Welsh Government on behalf of the people of Wales.

I'd like to quote another Conservative, Lord Dunlop, former Scotland Office and Northern Ireland Office Minister:

'if the power in the Bill is to be fully effective, it will be important for the UK Government to work in partnership, not conflict, with the devolved Administrations and representatives of local communities throughout the devolved nations. It would be a retrograde step...if Ministers sought to substitute local priorities with the priorities of the centre, uninformed by local views. In my experience, the maxim "The man in Whitehall knows best" is never a popular one, and certainly will not cut much ice in Scotland', he said. Nor in Wales either, I say.

There are plenty of ways in which a Conservative Government will want to thwart the priorities of a Welsh Labour Government, but imagine a future Conservative Government in this Senedd—not a prospect I relish—wanting to take steps and a more liberal Government in Westminster overruling that agenda. I'm sure Members on the Conservative benches would not regard that as acceptable.

Thirdly, the UK Government have claimed that the Bill does not contain new restrictions, and, indeed, creates new devolved powers. I would like to report to the Chamber that I'm still waiting to be shown which clause enhances the powers of this Senedd. Members will not be surprised to hear that that hasn't been pointed out. Clause 50 specifically inserts a new reservation of state aid and subsidies into Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006—a new and fresh limitation on the powers of this Senedd.

Fourthly, Dirprwy Lywydd, it's not as if we haven't tried to put forward and alternative approach to securing the internal market in a creative way that takes account of any legitimate concerns. We've proposed an approach that puts the common frameworks at the heart of the internal market, but gives the UK Government the right to ask Parliament to introduce market access principles in the narrow set of circumstances as a fall-back where the four Governments have failed to reach agreement. Common frameworks are there to align, respect devolution, while enabling a competitive internal market. The rejection by the UK Government of this approach is eloquent testimony to the fact that their motivation with bringing forward this Bill, and persisting in the teeth of such widespread opposition, has little to do with the concerns of businesses and everything to do with the desire to centralise power and hobble the freedom of this Senedd to do the job it was elected to do.

And this is the fifth reason: the clearest clue that anyone needs that this legislation is intended not so much as market regulation, but instead is constitutional legislation, is the blanket prohibition across the entire Bill through the protected enactment clauses—an exclusion of this Senedd's power to modify any aspect of it, whether it's devolved or not. Not a restriction, of course, which applies to Parliament. It is truly exceptional for a Bill to be put beyond the reach of the Senedd in its entirety. It's a Bill that purports to be about market principles, but is in fact a stealth attack on the constitution. I hope Members will agree that that is outrageous.

Dirpwy Lywydd, this Bill is an attack on devolution, it has no place in the regulation of the internal market, it has no place in the modern, devolved constitution of the United Kingdom, and it will hasten the break-up of the union if it becomes law. I urge all Members of the Senedd to reject the motion and deny the Bill our consent.