Call for full discussions amid power grab fears
THE Welsh Government has published a list of 64 powers at the centre of a Brexit row it is embroiled in with Westminster.
Under the European Union Withdrawal Bill, all the powers would pass from the EU to the UK Government.
But the Welsh Government says that would amount to a “power grab”, and that negotiations should take place on an equal footing between the two administrations about future arrangements.
In some cases, the Welsh Government argues that EU powers in devolved policy areas like agriculture and the environment should, after Brexit, be added to its responsibilities.
The UK Government maintains that it will need to oversee such powers so there is a common approach across what will be known as the UK single market.
Interestingly, the list of 64 powers – which was drawn up not by the Welsh Government, but by Westminster – contains areas such as carbon capture and storage at coal-fired power stations, blood safety, the ethics of organ transplantation and voting rights for EU citizens in council elections.
The Welsh Government set out how it believes matters should progress in a paper called Brexit and Devolution: Securing Wales’ Future. The document says: “At the point of UK exit from the EU, unless there is Parliamentary legislation to the contrary, those devolved powers currently exercised within an EU context will remain with the devolved institutions in Wales.
“Any other outcome would, in our view, require UK Parliamentary legislation to reverse the existing devolution settlement. Such a course would directly contradict the explicitly expressed preference of the Welsh people and would be vigorously opposed by the Welsh Government. We believe an approach along these lines would weaken trust and undermine the Union.”
The document goes on to explain how EU frameworks operate to ensure policy coherence and common practice.
And it states: “A consequence of the UK’s exit from the EU will undoubtedly raise this question: how do we ensure coherence of policy and practices across the UK to protect the functioning of our internal market without undermining devolution?”
Answering the question, the paper says: “In the same way that there must be UK-wide discussions on some devolved policies, we also argue for UK-wide discussions and agreement in some aspects of nondevolved policy.
“We believe this is necessary to ensure that polices have legitimacy across all parts of the UK and to ensure that there is appropriate integration where necessary between devolved and non-devolved policies.
“As we plan for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, it will be essential for the UK Government and the devolved administrations to agree where the shared governance approach is needed. We propose this should be approached on the basis of subsidiarity [with decisions taken by the Welsh Government and other devolved administrations].
“Where it is agreed that shared governance frameworks are required, this will not necessarily mean securing policy uniformity. In some instances frameworks may be concerned to promote convergence and a common approach to be followed by all administrations – for example, in dealing with specific environmental threats.
“In other instances frameworks may be designed to constrain divergence but still leave individual administrations with room for manoeuvre to suit local circumstances.
“So where regulatory convergence is no longer a requirement of our future relationship with the EU, we propose a pooling of sovereignty by the devolved administrations and the UK Government, supported by a system of shared governance, to regulate aspects of the internal UK market.”
The current arrangements for protecting animal health and welfare across the four UK administrations are given as an example of what can be achieved through “shared purpose and collaboration based on evidence.
“As a general proposition, we do not believe it will be in the general interest to develop four separate and incompatible animal health regimes across the four countries of the UK.
“Such an outcome would complicate commercial mobility of livestock and produce, and add needless cost – an outcome which is in no one’s interests.
“What we will need, plainly, is a set of binding UK-wide framework agreements developed and sustained through negotiation.”