Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill (Attorney General for England and Wales, Ref)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Attorney General for England and Wales (“Attorney General”) referred a devolution question to the Court under section 112(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (“GWA 2006”). The referral asked whether the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill 2013 (“the Bill”) falls within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales (“the Assembly”).

The Bill, passed on 17 July 2013, seeks to create a statutory regime—administered by an Agricultural Advisory Panel—for setting agricultural wages and related employment conditions in Wales. Its enactment follows:

• The historical regulation of agricultural wages for England and Wales under the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and the Agricultural Wages Board.
• The abolition of that Board by section 72 and Schedule 20 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
• The Welsh Government’s policy decision to preserve wage regulation in the agricultural sector notwithstanding the Board’s abolition.

Pursuant to section 108 and Schedule 7 GWA 2006, the Assembly possesses competence with respect to subjects listed under the heading “Agriculture, forestry, animals, plants and rural development.” The Attorney General contended that the Bill, properly characterised, relates instead to non-devolved matters of employment and industrial relations. The Counsel General for Wales argued that the Bill squarely concerns agriculture and thus lies within competence. The present opinion resolves that dispute.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, for the purposes of section 108(4) and (7) GWA 2006, the Bill “relates to” the devolved subject of “Agriculture” in Part 1 of Schedule 7.
2. If the Bill also bears upon employment and industrial relations (subjects neither listed as devolved nor listed as exceptions), does that dual character remove it from the Assembly’s competence?
3. How section 108 and Schedule 7 should be interpreted, having regard to the principles stated in prior Supreme Court devolution cases.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney General’s Arguments

• The Bill’s true purpose and effect concern employment and industrial relations, not agriculture.
• Employment law in the United Kingdom is normally uniform; allowing Wales-specific wage regulation would fragment that level playing field.
• No power over agricultural wages was transferred in earlier phases of Welsh devolution, suggesting no intent to confer it in the third phase.
• Accordingly, the Bill exceeds the Assembly’s powers and is void.

Counsel General’s Arguments

• The Bill’s purpose is to sustain and promote the Welsh agricultural industry by protecting its workforce; that is quintessentially “agriculture.”
• Section 108(4) requires only that a provision relate to a listed subject and not fall within a stated exception; employment is not an exception.
• The conferred-powers model should be applied as written; the Court should not add unstated limitations by judicial interpretation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

1. Interpretive Approach. Applying the principles from the precedents above, the Court examined the GWA 2006’s text alone, giving effect to its conferred-powers structure and explicit exceptions.

2. Meaning of “Agriculture.” In context, “Agriculture” in Schedule 7 covers the agricultural industry in all its facets, not merely soil cultivation or livestock rearing. It therefore includes measures directed at the economic conditions of that industry.

3. Purpose and Effect Test. The Bill’s genesis (consultation papers and policy objectives) and its operative clauses show a primary purpose of safeguarding and promoting the Welsh agricultural sector by regulating remuneration and conditions for agricultural workers. Its principal effect is confined to that sector.

4. Overlap with Employment/Industrial Relations. The Court accepted that the Bill incidentally affects employment law. Nevertheless, employment and industrial relations are neither devolved subjects nor stated exceptions. Section 108 does not require exclusive connection to a devolved subject; it is sufficient that the provision fairly and realistically relates to at least one listed subject and does not fall within an exception.

5. Rejection of Attorney General’s “Real Purpose” Argument. Accepting the Attorney General’s approach would judicially create new implied exceptions (e.g. “employment”) contrary to the statute’s wording, undermining coherence and workability of the legislative scheme.

6. Conclusion. Because the Bill plainly relates to the devolved subject of agriculture and falls within no exception or other statutory limitation, it is within the Assembly’s legislative competence.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill 2013 is within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales.

Implications: The decision affirms that, under the conferred-powers model, an Assembly Act need only relate to a listed subject and avoid enumerated exceptions; incidental overlap with non-devolved matters does not invalidate the legislation. This ruling provides a clear, stable interpretive framework for future Welsh legislation and underscores the breadth of the “Agriculture” subject heading, while setting no new substantive precedent beyond the devolution context.