| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nick Ainger: The term "effective" in this provision relates to the substance of a particular Assembly Measure. I realise that this is a probing amendment, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the other two conditions are straightforward, so that the legislation can be enforced in the courts, and that a Measure could be purely incidental or consequential. However, it is not always clear whether an amendment is purely consequential or incidental.
Let us take the example of an Assembly Measure that replaced the current system of listing buildings with a system of "historic buildings" or "heritage buildings".
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1250
When work is done on such buildings, or materials are bought for them, under the current system, that is zero-rated. If the Assembly wanted to change the listing system and call it "heritage buildings", or whatever, a consequential amendment to value added tax legislation would be needed.
There could be a debate whether that would be a purely consequential amendment. If the buildings were reclassified as heritage buildings, we would certainly think the Assembly Measure defective if it changed their position with regard to VAT. That is why we are using the term "effective". Clearly it is very constrained, but I hope that my brief comments will reassure the hon. Gentleman of the need to include that word, and he will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Grieve: I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 165, in clause 93, page 51, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
This is another probing amendment. I seek some guidance from the Minister about how subsection (7) should be interpreted. I have seen such subsections before, so it is not completely novel, but what would the circumstances be to which one would have to have regard in deciding whether an Assembly Measure fell within one of the areas specified in part 1 of schedule 5? That matters rather more in the context of Assembly Measures, as the Minister will understand, because if that were not the case, the Assembly would be acting outside its powers. It would be useful for the House to understand what the criteria are. If this is too complicated for the Minister to explain now from the Dispatch Box, a letter at a later stage would probably satisfy me.
Nick Ainger: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman. As he says, there is nothing unusual about this. It is designed to help resolve any doubts about whether a particular provision in an Assembly Measure is within the Assembly's legislative competence. If a question arises as to whether a provision in a Measure relates to a matter in schedule 5, the question is to be decided by considering the purpose of the Assembly Measure. My brief suggests that at this point I use the terms "the pith and substance" and "the true nature and character" of the provision.
Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman an example. We will soon be debating the Health Bill, which deals with, among many other things, a ban on smoking in public places. Within that Bill there are provisions to give the Assembly secondary legislation powers. Some may argue that that is a licensing issue rather than a health issue, but the purpose of the regulations that will ban smoking in public places is clearly health-related. I hope that that illustration helps the hon. Gentleman and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Grieve: The Minister's example was a very good one, absolutely on point and has clarified the matter completely. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1251
Schedule 5
Adam Price: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 108, line 30, at end insert—
'Field 5A: energy'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in page 109, line 39, at end insert—
'Field 13A: police, probation, and prison service'.
Adam Price: If my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) appears in a second, he may want to say a few words about amendment No. 25, which is more his area of competence, although sadly at the moment not that of the National Assembly.
On the Under-Secretary's suggestion, I will be pithy. Energy is topical at the moment with the publication today of the Government's consultation paper and the energy review. As energy provision is such a vital function and a secure, diverse and sustainable supply is so important, the issue is clearly of vast interest across the nations, but there are particular interests and the nature of energy differs across the United Kingdom. Energy has of course played a very important part in the history of Wales; we have certainly produced enough of it for the rest of the UK over a couple of centuries at least. It remains a key political issue in Wales for a variety of reasons.
However, there is an anomaly. Although energy remains a reserved matter, even under the Scotland Act, elements of it have been devolved and will be under the proposals in this Bill for Wales. Energy efficiency, for instance, is a devolved matter provided that it does not involve regulation or prohibition, as is energy conservation, and so on. Some elements of renewable energy are devolved and will continue to be so under the Bill. However, where there is interconnection, therein lies a problem.
At the moment, projects under 50 MW onshore are devolved to the National Assembly, whereas projects bigger than that remain a reserved matter in the Department of Trade and Industry. We argue that that is not acceptable. If we are to have a comprehensive energy policy for Wales, we must have greater devolution of power. That is why we seek through this amendment to introduce a new field for energy, which will allow the National Assembly, following the enactment of this Bill, to propose Orders in Council, extending some of its competence in energy.
Offshore developments are another area of increasing interest. There is an interesting feasibility study about possible tidal developments in Swansea bay and other coastal areas of Wales. Currently, and following the enactment of the Bill, such developments remain an exclusive power of the DTI. The Assembly should be enabled to propose an Order in Council to allow it greater control over such areas.
Moving to the more contentious issue of nuclear power, the National Assembly for Wales should decide whether Wales sees the building of a nuclear power station. We have heard the Secretary of State for Wales
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1252
express the view that he does not believe that Wales should go down the nuclear route, and similar statements have been made by the Minister for Economic Development and Transport who has responsibility for energy in the National Assembly. There is consensus among three, if not four, of the political parties—and, who knows, some of the independents as well—on the fact that we do not want Wales to go down such a route, but currently and under the Bill the National Assembly does not have the power to reject the imposition of a new nuclear power station, whether in Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire or any other part of Wales.
Surely that cannot be right. The Scottish Executive have the power under the Electricity Act 1989 to award or to reject power station consents. All we are asking in the amendment is that the National Assembly have the right to propose an Order in Council giving itself the same power as the Executives in Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland have.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are serious about having a genuine debate on nuclear power with the country, they should not be afraid to give the Welsh Assembly that authority? After all, it would be utterly undemocratic to force a nuclear power station on a community that clearly would resist such an application.
Adam Price: I entirely agree. When the Government publish the results of the consultation, it will be interesting to see whether there are different responses in the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. It is a matter for England if England wants to go down the nuclear route, but I suspect that the response in Wales will be negative. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Wales says, Wales should have right to decide its own future, because we shall be binding future generations.
I could go on to talk at length about other energy issues, but I am conscious of time. However, I should like to mention the energy corridor between the liquid natural gas terminals, which are themselves contentious, as the Under-Secretary knows. The proposed route of the pipeline goes through my constituency. That matter, too, is reserved; it is dealt with by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, although it cuts across planning and energy policy. Surely greater responsibility should be given to the National Assembly to enable it to produce a comprehensive energy policy that the people of Wales support.
8.30 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |