Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. An excessive number of rather noisy private conversations are taking place. I understand the sense of anticipation, but it is very unfair on Members asking questions and the Minister answering. Let us have a decent audience for Mr Stephen Crabb.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Despite Wales having world-leading companies that contribute to humanitarian efforts in some of the poorest nations on earth, no Welsh company has been able to secure a contract with the Department for International Development. Will my right hon. Friend look into that and work with the excellent International Development Secretary to make DFID not only more pro-business, but more pro-Welsh business?

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. Not only has he been a strong champion for Wales over many years, but he has shown a strong interest in overseas development. I will happily work with him and my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary on overseas aid to ensure that Welsh businesses get the same opportunity as any other UK business to win contracts to help to support and develop those nations.

Welsh Affairs

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Members will be aware of the plan by the Heads of the Valleys Development Company, led by Mr Michael Carrick, to build a racetrack at Ebbw Vale. Mr Carrick persuaded the Welsh Government to put £9 million into his company, Heads of the Valleys, in order to develop this, but has so far been unable to get the private sector to back the scheme without an assurance from the Welsh Government that they will provide over £200 million as a loan guarantee.

Mr Carrick claims to be an expert in building infrastructure. He has been involved in attempts to set up infrastructure projects in the Shetland islands and the Port of Ardersier in Scotland, as well two biomass projects in Africa and another in Ireland, and a river barrage scheme at Fleetwood. None of these projects has been successful. I have spoken to many involved who say that they feel let down and misled, and in more than one case that they are owed money. I could give some examples, but do not have the time. One that has been in the press, however, involved Mr Bob Long from Fleetwood, who tried to set up a river barrage. Mr Carrick told him that he had the funds available to develop the project, but the money never arrived, and Mr Long claims the project has been almost ruined as a result.

Aventa’s website, which Members can look at if they wish to, implies that it is responsible for managing a fund worth £350 million to build UK infrastructure, but Companies House records suggest that it has just £500 in the bank. However, with his £9 million of public money, Mr Carrick decided to buy a specialist motorcycle company based in Buckinghamshire. It was shown in the records as a dormant company until August 2012, after which it sprang into life. By August 2013, it was showing liabilities of £350,000. The losses grew, but when I met Mr Carrick in July last year, he told me that he would soon turn it around, that it would be an anchor business for his site and that it would lead to a Welsh rider winning a Welsh grand prix. A few months later, it was in administration, owing more than £500,000. If Mr Carrick cannot make a success of a small company turning over a few hundred thousand pounds, should the taxpayer be backing him in a venture worth several hundred million?

Mr Carrick’s publicly funded company has also bought the rights to hold the MotoGP championships at Silverstone, but so far he has made a loss on that of around £1 million. Many companies, including some local ones, have done work for the project but have not been paid—they have all done it at risk—but luckily, one supplier has been paid in full, again out of public funds. Mr Carrick decided to appoint a financial consultant to give advice to the scheme, and the company he appointed was Aventa, a company that he 100% owns and controls. In effect, he paid himself nearly £l million of public money to give himself advice. Civil servants in the Welsh Assembly raised concerns about this but were overruled. I have some written material to back all this up, by the way; I have the invoices. Among other things, Aventa spent £35,000 on landscape gardening. Those invoices were made out to the Heads of the Valleys Development Company, but Mr Carrick says that they were paid by Aventa. He also spent thousands of pounds on political events for the Labour party and, he tells me, for the Conservative party, although I do not have those invoices.

When I raised my concerns with Mr Carrick, he told me that he was entitled to spend Aventa money as he pleased and that it had sources of income other than the public money from the Heads of the Valleys Development Company. I asked for examples and he cited GE. I asked him whether he meant General Electric, and he said yes. I then contacted General Electric, which told me that he had asked for money but had not had any from the company. At the same meeting, one of Mr Carrick’s associates told me that BMW was planning to build a BMW world theme park at the site. I checked with BMW, which told me that that was absolutely ludicrous and that it had no plans to do so. Again, I have all this in writing.

Mr Carrick’s lawyers, who are in touch with me frequently, claimed that I had made all this up, but, fortunately for all concerned, I have a high-quality recording of the meeting, and they have now had to accept that all those comments were indeed made. I can share the transcript of the meeting with anyone who is interested, although I cannot share the recording without Mr Carrick’s permission, which he does not seem very willing to give. I asked him about the business plan, and I was told that he would be able to rent out the race track for between £18,000 and £35,000 a day. Industry experts tell me that that is absolutely ludicrous. But even if he did manage to do that, he would be pulling in revenue of only about £13 million a year on a project that is going to cost £430 million to build. I am intrigued as to why the project keeps increasing in cost, from £200 million in 2011 to £250 million in 2012 and to £380 million when I met Mr Carrick in July. Seven months later, it has risen again to £430 million.

I have two other documents of interest. The first is a quote from a construction company, FC, for £180 million for building the track—a project we are told is worth £430 million. Even with a few hotels chucked in, that would take a bit of explaining. The second is a business plan showing a developer’s profit of £13 million.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for his investigation into this episode. What broader lessons does he think should be drawn from this about Welsh Government Ministers’ attitudes towards the use of public money in the name of economic development?

[David T. C. Davies]

The first lesson is that nobody should be able to make £13 million on a project before it has even been built. Secondly, this whole thing is an outrage. People are being sold a pipe dream. Politicians who support it are being taken out for lunch, and those who ask difficult questions are being threatened with legal action by a group of expensive City lawyers. Some £9 million of taxpayers’ money has been wasted. The only infrastructure we have seen so far has been the £35,000-worth of work done to Mr Carrick’s mansion in Grantchester, and the only sports car in evidence is the Aston Martin that he drives around in. It is time to pull this project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow my neighbour the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I hope that he and I will agree on the principle of the importance of investing and creating jobs in the heads of the valleys.

Economic development will be the focus of my remarks, and we have seen good news in recent days. Yesterday, on St David’s day, the Cardiff capital region city deal was signed, which is clearly good news for south-east Wales. However, there are also concerns about Ford workers in Bridgend, which underlines—if there is any need to—the need for a coherent strategy from the UK Government for the years ahead. Whether people voted leave or remain in last year’s referendum, nobody voted to become poorer. We must ensure that structural funding continues beyond 2020. Foreign direct investment, which was at a 30-year high last year, must continue, and the Welsh Government deserve great credit for continuing to attract such investment to Wales. Steel, which is a foundation industry, must also be central to Wales’s economic future.

The priorities are both immediate and long term. Immediately, we must secure tariff-free access to the single market. Indeed, the Welsh Government’s “Securing Wales’ Future” document, which was produced together with Plaid Cymru, sets out the importance of participation in the single market, and a balanced migration policy, given that over two thirds of Welsh exports go there.

In the longer term, we need a vision of what a post-Brexit Wales should look like. The European Union currently has more than 50 free trade arrangements, which will clearly need replacing. The Brexit White Paper produced by the UK Government contains a chapter on “Securing new trade agreements with other countries”. It has 19 paragraphs, but there is no mention whatsoever of Wales’s position or the Welsh perspective on such trade agreements. However, that same document sets out that some of the fastest growing export markets between 2005 and 2014 were places such as China, South Korea, Brazil, and Mexico. The UK Government must work with the Welsh Government, which already have 14 overseas offices ready to assist with the creation of new trade agreements.

[Stephen Crabb]

My ears pricked up when the hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Welsh Government currently fund 14 overseas offices to assist with international trade. Given the extensive global network of embassies and high commissions that the UK Government fund from Westminster precisely to assist with international development, why should taxpayers fund these duplicate offices?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In a sense, the right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me: we need a Welsh perspective in the construction of post-Brexit trade deals.

In the teeth of opposition from Conservative Assembly Members, it was very important that the Welsh Government nationalised Cardiff airport, which is crucial to Wales’ economic future.

The constitutional arrangements of Wales in 2017 are different from those that existed in 1972 when Wales entered the then European Economic Community. When the rules currently set in Brussels on matters such as agriculture, the environment or certain parts of transport are repatriated to the United Kingdom, we must ensure that they are not exclusively returned to this Parliament when it would be more appropriate to base them with the Welsh Government in Cardiff. It is vital to bear that in mind in the debates to come.

There is a broader point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), whom I congratulate on leading the campaign to secure this debate, put it well when he talked about working now for the 100%. What is in the best interest of the people? Of course it is vital that we retain workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer protections as we move into a post-Brexit Wales, but let us have the ambition not only to retain those rights and protections but to build on them—to make our consumers better protected, to strengthen environmental protections and to build on the workers’ rights that our membership of the European Union established and deepened over the years.

Our focus on Wales’ economic wellbeing is vital. It is about ensuring that the voice of Wales is heard loud and clear in the negotiations ahead so that we are able to produce the prosperous post-Brexit Wales that we all want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. When one stands on the beautiful Pen y Fan in the mountains of the Brecon Beacons, we look down on south Wales to the Gower, and what a pleasure it is to see it from a distance—or, in fact, from near or far.

The Welsh tourism industry provides excellent employment prospects in my constituency and is a great boost to the local economy, but it is under some threat at the moment. Business rate hikes, should they go ahead as planned, will harm the tourism industry’s small profit margins, and a number of owners have expressed concerns to me that they might have to close altogether as a result. I therefore very much look forward to hearing any measures that the Chancellor can put in place next week for England that can be replicated in Wales.

It is not just the tourist in St David who is well suited to my speech. As many hon. Members will know, St David set up a number of monasteries around Wales. They were very frugal in their operations; once set up, they farmed the land. Thankfully, farming practices have remained, and produce from Wales is now widely recognised as among the finest products available in the world. Welsh lamb is becoming a benchmark for quality, and our beef is second to none. I am therefore pleased that the Government are supporting Welsh farmers by protecting farm payments until 2020. Furthermore, with Brexit, we have the opportunity to free our Welsh farmers from the shackles of the EU so that we can better compete with produce from around the world.

St David was not just a tourist and a farmer; he was also an inspiration to the warriors of Wales—he was recognised as our patron saint at the height of the Welsh rebellion against the Normans. Support for our military is still very visible in Wales. For many years, we have had a vast number of training grounds and barracks for our military right across our nation, and our communities take great pride in welcoming servicemen and women to their towns. I know that from the infantry training camps in Sennybridge and the Brecon Beacons, and from the barracks in Brecon, in my constituency, which once housed soldiers who fought in the battle of Rorke’s Drift, which was made famous by the film “Zulu”. That history of community is very important to local people, so I am disappointed that the Government seek to close the Brecon barracks. I hope that they will reconsider that proposal, see how important the barracks is to the military and the wider community, and keep it open for generations to come.

Following my research, I felt that I could not speak in this debate without mentioning St David’s great miracle. As he was preaching to the crowd at the synod of Brefi, he raised the ground beneath him into a hill that his sermon could be heard from. There are times when I wish for just such a power, because of my height—so does the Secretary of State, I am sure. None the less, I was reminded of the beautiful, rolling countryside of Brecon and Radnorshire.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech enormously, but I fear that he has made a slight omission. He has not yet referred to the fact that St David was, of course, from Pembrokeshire, the most beautiful part of our fabulous nation of Wales.

[Chris Davies]

Just as when my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Wales, we are delighted to see Pembrokeshire people ruling over us, but we are also delighted to see them go back to Pembrokeshire on occasions, too—[Interruption] Even though he remains a great right hon. Friend.

My right hon. Friend stopped me as I was just about to mention that great institution that we call the Labour-run Welsh Assembly, which is proposing to litter not just Brecon and Radnorshire, but the whole of mid-Wales, with wind and solar farms by imposing measures on Powys County Council’s local development plan. Such a proposal would harm not only the excellent tourism industry that I mentioned earlier, but the attractiveness of mid-Wales for locals and those thinking of relocating there. It looks as if we will need one of those great St David’s miracles to prevent these plans from going through, but I can assure Members that I shall be fighting them all the way.

May I say again what a pleasure it is to see this House focusing on Wales issues?

Wales Bill

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, and for the scrutiny and interest she has rightly given the Bill, but I hope she recognises the significance of the fiscal framework. The needs-based factor to which she refers is 115%, and the current level is well above that. It will fall to 115% over time, recognising the fair settlement that Wales gets because of its needs. It is significant that that needs-based factor is being introduced into the Wales settlement for the first time. It is something for which the hon. Lady and her party have been calling for some time, but it took a Conservative Government to deliver it.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has done a fantastic job of steering the Bill through its Commons stages. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) says that the figures are out of date, but when I sat down with Professor Holtham to think about how to scope out a fair funding floor for Wales, he was absolutely clear that there was no reason to think that just because of the passage of time the figures that he had in mind were somehow incorrect. The level that has been set by the Treasury is exactly right for Wales’s needs at this time.

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend played an important role in ensuring that we have the needs-based factor by framing the debate in such a way as to make possible a successful conclusion. Ultimately, the Welsh Government would understandably have rejected the Bill unless it was associated with an appropriate and fair funding settlement. I hope that Opposition Members will recognise the significance of the settlement, because it really does matter to the long-term funding of public services in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

This Bill will give the Welsh Assembly greater dignity and status as a real Parliament. From that point of view, we welcome it, but what we have seen today in this Chamber is that grudged nature of devolution. Today’s Supreme Court decision is saying that this Parliament will rule on powers that have already been devolved to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It should have no right to do that. It is reversing devolution in today’s judgment. Unfortunately, this sad Bill will not take account of Brexit or today’s decision by the Supreme Court.

[Stephen Crabb]

I had not planned to say much this afternoon, but I thought that I would take the opportunity to contribute. First, let me put on the record my thanks to the Secretary of State and congratulate him on the fantastic way he has steered this Bill through its Commons stages and on the way he has handled very sensitive discussions with the Welsh Government, peers and the Opposition parties to bring it to fruition.

I also wish to put on record my thanks to Lord Bourne and to Baroness Randerson, who has not been mentioned this afternoon. Baroness Randerson was a Minister in the Wales Office when I was Secretary of State, and she was a fantastic rock of wisdom and support on matters relating to devolution. The amendments before us really give effect to the fiscal framework agreement, and represent the culmination of all those original aims that we set out for this next stage of devolution.

I remember sitting down with the then Prime Minister David Cameron two and a half years ago in the lead-up to the Scottish referendum—we all felt that it was a moment of unique constitutional history—and saying, “Well, where does this leave Wales? Do we need to do something further on Welsh devolution?” We had already had the Silk reports. To be honest, they were on the shelf. My feeling was that it was not good enough to leave Welsh devolution in limbo. Yes, there was a bit of pressure coming from some of the opposition parties in the Welsh Government to give effect to Silk 2, but there was no overwhelming pressure. Conceivably, we could have resisted that pressure, but I thought that moving on to the next stage of Welsh devolution was the right thing to do.

I am immensely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to Baroness Randerson who were with me at the time in the Wales Office. We really talked about the matter to see what we should do. Comments have already been made this afternoon about how the Bill has changed, but it has followed an entirely appropriate and correct process, including a draft Bill, a consultation, the taking of advice and guidance, and amendments. The tone throughout has been one of listening. However, the original objectives have not changed. We wanted to create a stronger, clearer devolution settlement for Wales to end the constant arguing that resulted in the UK Government and the Welsh Government trotting off to the Supreme Court to debate which Administration are responsible for which policies—it was absolutely ridiculous. We also want to create a fairer devolution settlement, which is where the financial aspect comes in.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done. My colleague Jenny Randerson greatly enjoyed working with him. He has pushed this agenda forward. One test that he employed at the time was to see whether the settlement would stand the test of time and whether a chapter would be closed—would Wales get used to its new constitutional settlement and would we not have to return to devolution in future? Has that test been met?

[Stephen Crabb]

To be absolutely honest, I do not think that this represents the end of the book on Welsh devolution, but we need a prolonged period in which the Welsh Government learn to deploy their powers and use their competencies in a way that benefits the people of Wales. We were talking about the M4 upgrade earlier; an early deal that I did when I was Secretary of State for Wales involved making new money available to the Welsh Government to crack on with it. The project had been talked about for years. I remember taking a question on it during Welsh questions and William Hague leant across to me and said that people were talking about it 20 years ago when he was Secretary of State for Wales. We are still waiting for any substantial action despite the money being available. That is the challenge that risks corroding public support for devolution in Wales—the sense that the Welsh Government, despite their additional powers, seem unable to crack on and take big, bold decisions to improve the lives of people in Wales.

Returning to my previous point, the Bill meets the core objectives that we set out. The reserved powers model and additional powers for the Assembly and for the Welsh Government create a stronger devolution framework. Amendment 9 will create a clearer and fairer settlement as a result of the fiscal framework and the funding floor for the Welsh Government’s new borrowing powers. I remember being told two and a half years ago that the four things that we wanted to achieve had no chance of success. I was told that the Treasury would not agree to them, that the Welsh Government would not agree to take tax-raising powers—income tax powers—and that my own Back Benchers would not agree. However, all the parties worked together to sketch things out while respecting each other’s’ differences. Plaid Cymru has long-standing aspirations and ambitions for Welsh devolution that, frankly, no Wales Bill has met, but the tone was constructive and that has laid a good foundation and has provided smooth passage for a reasonably good Bill. It is not the end of the story, but I hope that it is the end of an interesting chapter for Welsh devolution.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the best to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is expecting the imminent arrival of the latest member of his family. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I sympathise with all MPs who have to balance family life and parliamentary duty.

I, of course, welcome to an extent the fact that a fiscal framework is on the verge of being in place, giving the Welsh Government a degree of financial accountability that is intrinsic for any functioning democratic Parliament. Judgment is still very much out, however, on whether it can really deliver the economic accountability and levers for growth that are required in this tumultuous time. I therefore want to start with a few brief comments about the framework’s ambition, or lack thereof. I then want to ask the Minister a specific question about how the framework will operate before finally discussing the capital expenditure limit outlined in amendment 9.

Despite finally having this fiscal framework in place, we still lag behind every other devolved Administration in terms of powers and responsibilities. Earlier today—like most days—we were embroiled in the Brexit conundrum and all its unravelling economic implications, but the Government’s insistence on a patchwork approach to devolution means that Wales will not have the real levers for growth that it needs at this most difficult of economic times. If the Conservative party wants to talk about the real opportunities that a single market and customs union exit brings for Wales, it should be looking at the fiscal levers for growth, including VAT, the most important tax for Wales, and how it could be devolved. I hope the Minister will indicate that he plans to review the framework in the light of recent developments to ensure that Wales has such fiscal levers.

I briefly want to touch on a technical point that my party colleague, Adam Price AM, has already raised with the Welsh Government’s Cabinet Finance Secretary. The much trumpeted relative need provision of the fiscal framework—the 115% rule, which is referred to as the Holtham floor—was based on a set of criteria that determined Wales’s relative need in 2009-10. There seem to be no plans to conduct a review of that relative need when the floor is set to be implemented approximately three years from now, meaning that those relative needs will be based on figures that are 10 years out of date. This was discussed briefly in earlier interventions, but the 115% rule surely cannot be set in stone for all time, so I ask the Minister to propose a review to investigate that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments, but of course we have a close and constructive working relationship with the Welsh Government and all devolved Administrations because it is in our interests to get the strongest deal for the whole of the UK. After all, as my hon. Friend will recognise, the most important market for Welsh business is the UK market, and getting the best deal for the whole of the UK is in all our interests.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The automotive and aerospace sectors are of enormous strategic importance for the Welsh economy. Given that Brexit probably will not mean retaining full membership of the single market, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless commit to do everything he can to retain full single market-style benefits for those critically important sectors in the Welsh economy?

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. He recognises the strength of the automotive and aerospace sectors, and I would point to some significant major investments the UK has landed. We are all familiar with Nissan investment in Sunderland, but it is equally important to the Welsh economy—Calsonic Kansei in Llanelli is a supplier to Nissan in Sunderland. We want to maintain the most open market arrangements, and the confidence shown by Nissan demonstrates it understands the priority we are placing on that.

Macur Review

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the publication of the report of the Macur review.

On 5 November 2012, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of an independent review of the scope and conduct of Sir Ronald Waterhouse’s inquiry into allegations of child abuse in care homes in Clwyd and Gwynedd between 1974 and 1990. Let us be clear: we are talking about dark and shameful events that are a stain on our nation. The children were in the care of the state because they were vulnerable, and the state let them down. That is why our first thought will always be with the victims, supporting them and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

The Prime Minister’s announcement of a review of Waterhouse followed significant public concern that its terms of reference were too narrow, and that allegations of child abuse were not properly investigated by Waterhouse, particularly where those allegations concerned prominent individuals. The Waterhouse inquiry was established in 1996 by the then Secretary of State for Wales, now Lord Hague of Richmond, following allegations of endemic child abuse at care homes in Clwyd and Gwynedd. Waterhouse’s final report, “Lost in Care”, published in 2000, concluded:

“Widespread sexual abuse of boys occurred in children’s residential establishments in Clwyd between 1974 and 1990”,

and that there was a paedophile ring operating in the north Wales and Chester areas, but no reference was made to any abuse being carried out by nationally prominent individuals.

On 8 November 2012, the then Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), announced that the review would be headed by Mrs Justice Macur DBE, a High Court judge of the family division. Her terms of reference were to review the scope of Waterhouse; determine whether any specific allegations of child abuse falling within the Waterhouse’s terms of reference were not investigated; and to make recommendations to the Secretaries of State for Justice and for Wales.

Lady Justice Macur submitted her report to the Secretary of State for Justice and me on 10 December 2015. I pay tribute to her and her team for their work and for their thoroughness and diligence in carrying it out, particularly in the light of the huge amount of material that needed to be considered. She and her team have examined the 1 million-plus pages of documents relating to Waterhouse provided to her from many sources. She has conducted interviews with individuals closely involved with the work of Waterhouse; with those who provided written submissions to Waterhouse; with those involved in police investigations; and with those who worked on the prosecution files of those accused of abuse of children in care in north Wales. She published an issues paper, in English and in Welsh, with suggestions of broad areas of interest, to prompt written submissions from those affected. She also arranged a public meeting in Wrexham specifically to engage those in the local area.

Having completed that work, Lady Justice Macur’s main finding is as follows:

“I have found no reason to undermine the conclusions of”

Waterhouse

“in respect of the nature and the scale of abuse.”

Lady Justice Macur looked carefully at the specific issue of nationally prominent figures and concluded that there was no

“evidence of the involvement of nationally prominent individuals in the abuse of children in care in North Wales between 1974 and 1996”.

While the Government welcome that finding, the context in which it is made must never be forgotten.

In addressing concerns about the time taken by the former Welsh Office to set up the Waterhouse inquiry in the mid-1990s, Lady Justice Macur does recognise that there was some reluctance in that Department to undertake a public inquiry. However, she concludes that any reluctance to undertake a public inquiry was

“not with a view to protect politicians or other establishment figures”

and that

“the government was right to consider the different options since a public inquiry...was correctly understood to be a major undertaking”.

Lady Justice Macur is also clear that waiting until Crown Prosecution Service investigations had been completed was the correct decision, as

“the government would be justifiably subject to criticism in creating any situation that compromised ongoing criminal investigation or prospective trials of accused abusers”.

Lady Justice Macur makes it clear that she is satisfied that Waterhouse’s terms of reference were not framed to conceal the identity of any establishment figure, nor have they been interpreted by the tribunal with a design to do so. She has also found that, despite the Welsh Office being both the commissioning Department and a party to Waterhouse, there was ample independence of Waterhouse from the Welsh Office.

Freemasonry has been a persistent theme of concern in relation to the events in north Wales and is referenced extensively in Waterhouse. I am grateful to Lady Justice Macur for her thorough explorations of this issue, but she is satisfied that

"the impact of freemasonry on the issues concerning the Tribunal was soundly researched and appropriately presented and pursued”

and that

“there is nothing to call into question the adequacy of the Tribunal’s investigations into the issue of freemasonry at any stage of the process”.

As I mentioned earlier, Lady Justice Macur states:

“I make clear that I have seen NO evidence of child abuse by politicians or national establishment figures in the documents which were available to the Tribunal, save that which could be classed as unreliable speculation.”

On the direct evidence before them, she also found that it was

“not unreasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that there was no evidence of a further paedophile ring in existence"

outside of that described by Waterhouse.

In addition to her main finding that she has no reason to undermine Waterhouse’s conclusions, Lady Justice Macur makes a total of six recommendations. Her first relates to ensuring that any public inquiry, investigation or review can be objectively viewed as beyond reproach. The Government agree. We have already been clear that, during the establishment of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in 2014, we did not get it right in initially appointing two chairs who had failed to win the trust of survivors. This is a principle that should be rigorously observed in the establishment of inquiries, investigations or reviews.

Lady Justice Macur’s second recommendation is that the preservation and correct archiving of material of an important public inquiry or review is essential. This links to her third recommendation that all Government Departments should possess an accurate database of the documents and materials held by them. Again, we agree with both those recommendations.

When the Welsh Office, which established Waterhouse, was disbanded in 1999, the files it held on newly devolved issues such as social care and children’s services were transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. This included the Waterhouse computer database. When Lady Justice Macur requested this, it was found that in 2008 Welsh Government IT contractors had declared that its contents were “corrupted and unreadable” and they had therefore been destroyed. She finds that it was an

“innocent mistake, rather than a calculated ploy”.

Files relating to Waterhouse will not be returned to the Wales Office; given their historical importance, they have been transferred to the Welsh Government for onward transmission to the National Archives.

The Government accept the criticisms made by Lady Justice Macur of the way documents were stored. Similar criticisms were made of the Home Office in the first Wanless and Whittam inquiry in 2014. Following the recommendations made by Wanless and Whittam on the management of files containing records of child sexual abuse, the Cabinet Secretary asked all permanent secretaries to consider how their Departments can learn lessons from the review and put in place appropriate safeguards. Likewise, following the establishment of the Goddard inquiry, the Cabinet Office announced a moratorium on the destruction of information, and put in place processes for the storage of such material. The failure of the new Wales Office in 1999, under a previous Government, to adequately archive the material is simply inexcusable, but a much more rigorous approach to records management is now in place in the Department, abiding by National Archives policy on records management.

Lady Justice Macur’s fourth recommendation is that due criminal process is better suited to the disposal of any unresolved complaints and allegations that were not investigated during the course of Waterhouse, rather than a public or a private inquiry. The Government agree, and welcome particularly the work of Operation Pallial in this area.

Lady Justice Macur’s fifth recommendation relates to consideration of criminal charges relating to events referenced in paragraphs 6.45 to 6.75. For the sake of clarity, let me say that this does not relate to the actions of the Welsh Office or any other Government Department. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are aware of the specifics of this matter and it is for them to consider further.

The final recommendation relates to the process of establishing a review of previous tribunals or boards of inquiry. Lady Justice Macur notes that

“the conclusions of any such body will not meet with universal approval, and that those with an interest, personal or otherwise, will seek justification for their views and be unlikely to accept the contrary”.

The Government note this and understand that it is inevitable that some people will remain dissatisfied, despite the comprehensive work undertaken by the Waterhouse inquiry and now by Lady Justice Macur.

Hon. Members who have long campaigned on this issue have said that the report should have been published without delay. I absolutely share the same instinct for openness and full transparency. However, Lady Justice Macur has acknowledged that her final report contains information, including the names of some individuals, that it would not be possible to publish. In particular, she notes that certain parts of her report ought to be redacted, pending the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings or police investigations. We have worked closely with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police—specifically representatives of Operations Pallial, Hydrant and Orarian—to ensure that no investigations or trials will be prejudiced by the release of this report. The names of those found guilty of crimes of child sexual abuse in a court of law have of course not been removed.

The names of contributors to the review and Waterhouse have not generally been redacted, but Lady Justice Macur also cautioned that, under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, victims of alleged sexual offences are entitled to lifelong anonymity. As such, these names, along with names of individual members of the Crown Prosecution Service and police informants, have been considered carefully by Sue Gray, director general of propriety and ethics in the Cabinet Office. We have accepted her advice in full, and a small number of redactions have been made in those categories. The full details of the process by which redactions in these areas were made is set out in a letter from Sue Gray that I am today publishing alongside the redacted report.

Lady Justice Macur urged caution in relation to releasing the names of individuals accused of abuse, or speculated to be involved in abuse, who have not been subject to a police investigation, have not been convicted of a criminal offence, and/or whose names are not in the public domain in the context of child abuse, whether establishment figures or not. She argued that to do so would be

“unfair in two respects and unwise in a third:…first, the nature of the information against them sometimes derives from multiple hearsay;…second, these individuals will have no proper opportunity to address the unattributed and, sometimes, unspecified allegations of disreputable conduct made against them;…and third, police investigations may be compromised”.

We have followed that advice and removed those names from the report published today. It is a fundamental tenet of the law in this country that those accused of a crime are able to face their accusers in court, with a jury of their peers to consider the evidence, and not tried in the court of public opinion as a result of “multiple hearsay”. It would be irresponsible for the Government to behave differently. To provide total clarity on the process by which this group of names was redacted, I am also today publishing a letter from Jonathan Jones, Treasury solicitor and head of the Government Legal Department, setting this out.

I should also like to stress that a full and unredacted version of the report has been provided to the wider independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard, to aid its investigations. It has also been seen by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the CPS and representatives of Operations Pallial, Orarian and Hydrant.

As a Government, we are determined to see those guilty of crimes against children in north Wales brought to justice, and this is happening through the excellent work of Operation Pallial. In November 2012, the chief constable of North Wales police asked Keith Bristow, director general of the National Crime Agency, to lead Operation Pallial, which would look into specific recent allegations of historical abuse in the care system in north Wales. A total of seven men have been convicted of one or more offences following investigations by Operation Pallial, and a further eight have been acquitted after a jury trial. That includes John Allen, who ran Bryn Alyn Community, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2014 after a jury found him guilty of 33 charges of serious sexual abuse. Five members of a predatory paedophile group received a total of 43 years in jail in September 2015, having been found guilty of a total of 34 offences of abuse.

Operation Pallial has now been contacted by 334 people, who have had the trust and confidence to come forward to report abuse. A total of 102 complaints are actively being investigated at this very moment. A total of 51 men and women have been arrested or interviewed under caution, and work to locate further suspects is continuing. A total of 16 people have been charged or summonsed to court as a result of Operation Pallial so far. Charging advice is awaited in relation to a further 26 suspects.

A total of 32 suspects are believed to be dead, and work is ongoing to confirm this. An independent review of evidence against 25 of these deceased suspects has indicated that there would have been sufficient evidence to make a case to the CPS for them to be charged with various offences. Those who made complaints in such cases have been updated personally by the Pallial team. A further two trials have been set for 2016, with further trials expected.

In closing, I would once again like to thank Lady Justice Macur and her team for their diligent and exhaustive work in providing this report. I would like to pay tribute to the courage of those victims for coming forward and reliving the horrible detail of their experiences to ensure that the truth can be established once and for all. I would like to pay tribute to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions for their collective work to ensure that those who were involved in the abuse of children in north Wales, who perhaps thought that the mists of time had hidden their crimes for ever, are now being made to pay for what they did. I commend this statement to the House.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.

The horrific abuse that was carried out at care homes in north Wales has shocked us all and our thoughts today must be with the survivors. Not only did they endure violence from those who were meant to protect them, but they have had to wait years—decades—to be heard.

I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) who has campaigned tirelessly for the survivors ever since these allegations came to light. As she has highlighted before, some of those who were abused at Bryn Estyn and other homes have since taken their own lives. It is therefore right that we think of their families today and of everyone affected by this scandal.

The extent of the abuse revealed by the Waterhouse inquiry was staggering. It found evidence of “widespread and persistent” physical and sexual abuse, including multiple rapes carried out against young boys and girls. This abuse was allowed to take place over many years, sometimes decades, in the very homes where vulnerable children should have felt safe. The scale of the abuse is shocking, but what is also shocking is that many of the inquiries into this abuse have encountered a reluctance to co-operate with them, and a refusal to publish their conclusions—in short, cover-ups and missed opportunities.

As the Secretary of State has indicated, the Macur review was

“set up to examine whether any specific allegations of child abuse falling within the terms of reference of the Waterhouse Inquiry were not investigated.”

On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to extend our thanks to Lady Justice Macur and her review team for the work that they have undertaken. In the light of what has happened to previous reports and the overwhelming need for transparency, I welcome the fact that the Macur review has now been published.

There may be cases where redactions are needed, not least to ensure that no ongoing police investigation is compromised, but these redactions must be as few as possible and they must be justified to the survivors. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this review, along with the many other reports on and inquiries into abuse in north Wales, will be made available in full to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and that this inquiry will be able to see full, unredacted copies of these reports?

The Waterhouse inquiry found that most children did not feel able to come forward to report what had happened to them. The few who did were discouraged from taking matters further. In fact, were it not for the bravery of whistleblower Alison Taylor, many cases of abuse would not have been uncovered. Although we recognise that processes for safeguarding children have changed radically since many of these cases took place, we must always be ready to learn lessons to ensure that we can protect children better in the future.

Having studied the report, what changes in policy or practice do the Government feel are necessary? What steps will they take to ensure a co-ordinated response to any future cases, wherever they occur—in the public, private or third sector? Does the Secretary of State believe that there is sufficient protection for whistleblowers such as Alison Taylor?

We know that physical and sexual abuse has a lasting impact on the lives of those affected. In recent years, many survivors have felt able to come forward and report the abuse that they experienced. Indeed, we know that a number of people contacted the Children’s Commissioner for Wales following the announcement of the review, and it is possible that others will come forward as a result of the report’s publication. No matter how long ago the abuse took place, survivors need support to rebuild their lives. What support is being given to the survivors of abuse who have come forward, and what conversations has the Secretary of State had with agencies, including the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, to ensure that survivors of abuse know where to turn?

The scale of the abuse that has become apparent in recent years has shocked the whole of society. It is now clear that many thousands of children were targeted by predatory abusers in places where they should have felt safe. Far too many of those children were let down for a second time when they reached out for help, but nothing was done. Our duty is to make sure that survivors of abuse are heard and listened to, that those who report abuse are given sufficient protection, and that anyone who is responsible for acts of violence against children is brought to justice. Above all, we must ensure that this appalling abuse can never be allowed to happen again.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response to the statement, and for the spirit and tone in which she made it. I join her in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for her long-standing work in trying to achieve justice not only for her constituents who suffered abuse, but for the wider number of care home residents at the time.

When we discussed this issue during a recent session of Wales Office questions, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley asked me about the redactions. I gave her a commitment that everything possible would be done to ensure that they were kept to a minimum, and that we would be able to explain the reasons for them fully. As I said in my statement, I believe that the letters that we have published along with the report set out those reasons very clearly, but I suggest that Members read Lady Justice Macur’s remarks in the report urging caution in relation to the publication of the names of individuals in the various categories that she describes. I hope that those explanations will provide ample justification for the redactions.

The hon. Lady asked whether we would make a full, unredacted version of the report available to the independent Goddard inquiry. The answer is yes, absolutely. We have also made a full, unredacted copy available to the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Operations Pallial, Hydrant and Orarian.

The hon. Lady asked about changes in policy and practice, and about looking to the future. As I said in my statement, Lady Justice Macur has made a number of specific asks of the Government. She has asked for changes to be made, and made recommendations about, in particular, the way in which material is stored and archived. That is one of the weaknesses that she found in establishing her inquiry after 2012, when it was set up. She referred to the “disarray” that many of the files were in. There are important lessons to be learned by Government as a whole—devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government—about the way in which sensitive material is archived and protected for the future. Those lessons have been and are being learnt.

As for the wider issue of how we support the survivors and victims of abuse, I think that there has been an enormous cultural change in the last 30 years in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. That is one of the reasons why more survivors now feel empowered to come forward as part of Operation Pallial, to relive those horrific events, and to make specific allegations, which are being pursued rigorously by the National Crime Agency.

The really positive developments that have taken place since the 1990s, including the establishment of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, show that as a society we have made a lot of progress. Of course we do not get everything right, and there is much more that we need to learn to do, but we have made a lot of progress over the past 30 years on the way in which we support victims of sexual abuse and address this issue. I do not wish to sound complacent in any way, however, and indeed there is no sense of complacency in Lady Justice Macur’s report that we are publishing today. I hope that that addresses the hon. Lady’s specific question.

The hon. Lady also asked what support was being provided through the independent Goddard inquiry. The inquiry will shortly open an office in Cardiff to reach out to survivors in Wales, and it will work through the mediums of English and Welsh.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I also pay tribute to the work done by Lady Justice Macur. I know that it has been a monumental undertaking for her. The events she was investigating have cast a dark cloud over north Wales and the Chester area for many years. I am hopeful that the report published today will ease those concerns, but I have to say to my right hon. Friend that I continue to have my own concerns in two respects. The first relates to the absence of documentation. I fully accept what he has said about its storage, which has frankly been little more than a catalogue of disaster, but will he assure the House that not only his Department and Her Majesty’s Government but the Welsh Assembly Government, who had custody of the documents but lost them, have learned the lessons from this?

My second concern relates to the redactions, which I believe will cause the most concern in north Wales. I fully understand the reasons that my right hon. Friend and Lady Justice Macur have given for this, but can he confirm that Justice Lowell Goddard will have the right to pursue in her own inquiry the identities of those whose names have been redacted in today’s report?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his questions. He was one of the joint commissioning Secretaries of State for the foundation of the Macur review. He asked two specific questions. The first was about the absence of the relevant documentation. The conclusion that Lady Justice Macur comes to is that she is confident she has seen enough documentation from the Waterhouse tribunal to make some strong conclusions about the overall findings that Waterhouse reached, and that she supports the overall findings of Waterhouse based on her exhaustive trawl through 1 million-plus pages of documentation. Where there are gaps, she has concluded that they are not sufficient to cast into doubt her overall findings.

My right hon. Friend’s second point related to redactions. Again I make the point that a full unredacted copy has gone to the Goddard inquiry. He asked whether Goddard would be able to pursue those names in the unredacted report. Let us bear it in mind that one of the specific recommendations of the Macur review is that the police and the judicial process will be best placed to go after those people against whom specific allegations have been made, and that public or private inquiries are not the best forum in which to do that.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Page 300 of the Waterhouse report lists the names of 13 young men who could not give evidence to the new review because they had lost their lives. Most of them took their own lives following the case, when they appeared before those who had been accused. They were all used to give evidence in court, some of them because of their police backgrounds. The victims were mercilessly torn to shreds and several of them took their own lives as a direct consequence of the abuse being continued by our court system. That is still continuing today. What this report covers would not have been revealed were it not for the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Bruce Kennedy and Paddy French, journalists at HTV. It is difficult to judge the report before giving it full consideration, but this is a heart-breaking story of abuse. Those who were responsible were laughing as they went away from court, and the lives of innocents were ended prematurely. We still need to look further into the matter and to consider carefully why some names are still redacted. Is this historical abuse continuing?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. We are talking about heinous, horrific acts of abuse. We are talking about children who were in the care of the state and got anything but the care of the state. It is a long and tragic sequence of events. Of course, today’s report will not bring full closure to absolutely everybody who lived through those experiences, but Lady Justice Macur has been thorough and diligent in her task of trawling through all the paperwork of the Waterhouse inquiry to try to make sense of whether victims got a fair shout and whether questions about nationally prominent individuals, further paedophile rings, and the role of freemasonry were addressed appropriately. I encourage all hon. Members with an interest in the matter to read the report in full and to reflect on its conclusions.

As for continuing the investigation of those who are guilty, let me be clear that there are people walking around in north Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom right now who were there at the time, who participated in and witnessed these acts, and who have gone for years thinking that they are untouchable. I hope that the summary of the achievements of Operation Pallial that I read out earlier demonstrated that such people should be looking over their shoulders.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

What happened in north Wales is nothing short of a national scandal for Wales, but will the Secretary of State put on the record his thanks to all those who work day in, day out in childcare, orphanages and other facilities, both in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and do so professionally and with care?

I am glad that the Government, the police and the National Crime Agency are taking action. What recent discussions has the Secretary of State had with the NCA about Operation Pallial to ensure that we get more people in court and prosecuted for these heinous crimes?

[Stephen Crabb]

We absolutely put on the record today our thanks for and appreciation of the hard work of those who work in the care sector, supporting vulnerable children wherever they are in the United Kingdom

The National Crime Agency has kept me regularly updated with the progress of Operation Pallial. Just yesterday, I had further discussions with the agency’s deputy director. I am absolutely confident that the NCA is vigorously pursuing all lines of investigation.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Abuse survivors will be dismayed at this morning’s litany of name-concealing and the destruction of evidence. They may rightly feel that their evidence is transient, disposable and not worth safeguarding. How will the Secretary of State work with the Children’s Commissioner for Wales and the Welsh Government to ensure that lessons are learned and that this never happens again?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady is right that people will still be feeling like that. All I would say is that they should take the time to go through the report and look at how Lady Justice Macur has handled to the very best of her ability all the sensitive, difficult questions that have plagued survivors for years and years. A lot of lessons have already been learned from the events we are talking about. As I said in answer to a question a few moments ago, that is not to say we are complacent, as there is always more we can learn as a society. But in terms of where we are in Wales right now, we have the Children’s Commissioner and the work that the Welsh Government are doing. There is good collaboration between UK Departments and the Welsh Government on these issues to do with social services, childcare and vulnerable people. The work is positive and will carry on.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The people of Wrexham, where many of these horrible events took place, will be astonished by the contents of today’s statement. As a solicitor who practised in the courts around Wrexham in the ‘80s and ‘90s, I am astonished by its contents. I note that the Secretary of State referred only fleetingly to some reluctance in the old Welsh Office to undertake a public inquiry in the 1990s, and I will read the report closely in that respect. Will he please tell me why the prosecutions that are now taking place as a result of Operation Pallial did not take place in 2000, following the Waterhouse inquiry? He did not address that at all in his statement.

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He expresses astonishment. What I say in response to that is that if he has specific information about specific individuals, he knows where to go with it—to the police. His question as to why the arrests are being made now and were not being made 30 years ago is a specific question that I have put to the NCA. Its response was that, first, this is because of the publicity of recent years and, secondly, it is because of the culture change, with a lot more witnesses feeling empowered to come forward. That is part of the reason why much greater convictions are being secured; the police are receiving greater, specific evidence from survivors and victims who feel willing to come forward.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Has the Macur review had unfettered access to those who can explain why the original Waterhouse inquiry did not name the persons of public prominence in its report?

[Stephen Crabb]

Some of the individuals who worked on the Waterhouse tribunal are no longer living, but Lady Justice Macur has pursued, to the very best of her ability, direct conversations with people who worked on the tribunal at the time. As I explained earlier, she has also reached out to survivors. She held that public event in Wrexham to explore this as fully as she possibly could. This was not just her trawling through boxes of documents to explore all these questions. She explains why names should not just be bandied about and she explains clearly why a redaction process is necessary, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look through that, along with the letters I am publishing alongside it today, in order to understand this.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State was right to acknowledge the anguish and suffering that these events have caused and the fact that the police need to continue inquiries in respect of any of the perpetrators. Does he agree that it is vital that victims get support with mental health services and therapy? Will he be making representations to make sure that some of the money the Government are rightly investing in mental health goes to help victims of these types of terrible crimes?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the way we support survivors and victims of abuse, no matter how far back the events occurred. I assure him that for those people who have come forward it is not just a question of our listening and receiving evidence; consideration is given to what further support can be given. Some victims do not feel that they can come forward. Some have moved on and now have families of their own, and for them these are episodes in their past that they are keeping deeply buried. This is obviously a matter of choice for individual survivors.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents who have been abused have felt let down because of the long, long delays in this and other reports being produced. They feel that because their abusers have died they will not now get the justice that they deserve. Does the report cover records held by the local authorities in north Wales? I have encountered constituents who have found it difficult to obtain records, particularly those held by Gwynedd authority.

[Stephen Crabb]

Lady Justice Macur’s specific recommendations relate to records that have been kept by national Government. Parts of her report does go, in detail, into how information was handled by local authorities. We are talking about the former local authorities of Clwyd and Gwynedd, which were disbanded and turned into new local authorities. At this point in time, I would just encourage him to read through the report. If he has further questions, he will have an opportunity to explore this further next week in a Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).

Localism

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have agreed a city deal with local authorities in the Cardiff capital region and the Welsh Government. This agreement is another significant step in the Government’s ambition to rebalance the economy and empower our cities as engines of economic and civic renewal.

The Chancellor opened negotiations with Cardiff a year ago, at the March Budget in 2015. The Cardiff capital region city deal is a transformational opportunity and something that both the UK and Welsh Governments and local authorities alike have worked together to deliver.

The city deal includes:

£1.2 billion investment in the Cardiff capital region’s infrastructure through a 20-year investment fund. A key priority for investment will be the delivery of the south-east Wales metro, including the valley lines electrification programme.

The creation of a non-statutory regional transport authority to co-ordinate transport planning and investment, in partnership with the Welsh Government.

The development of capabilities in compound semiconductor applications. The UK Government will invest £50 million to establish a new catapult centre in Wales. The CCR will also prioritise investment in research and development, and provide support for high-value, innovative businesses.

The Cardiff capital region skills and employment board will be created—building on existing arrangements—to ensure skills and employment provision is responsive to the needs of local businesses and communities. The CCR and the Welsh Government will work with Department of Work and Pensions to co-design the future employment support from 2017 for people with a health condition or disability and/or long-term unemployed.

The Welsh Government and the Cardiff capital region commit to a new partnership approach to housing development and regeneration. This will ensure the delivery of sustainable communities, through the use and reuse of property and sites.

Both the UK and Welsh Government are contributing £500 million to the CCR investment fund respectively. The 10 local authorities in the Cardiff capital region will contribute a minimum of £120 million over the 20-year period of the fund. In addition, over £100 million from the European regional development fund has been committed to delivering the city deal.

Over its lifetime, local partners expect the city deal to deliver up to 25,000 new jobs and leverage an additional £4 billion of private sector investment.

The city deal will develop stronger and more effective leadership and governance across the region through a Cardiff capital region cabinet, enabling the 10 local authority leaders to join up decision-making, pool resources, and work closely with business.

The Government welcome and support co-operation between businesses and local government. As part of the city deal, a Cardiff capital region business organisation will be established to ensure that there is a single voice for business to work with local authority leaders.

This agreement marks the next step in an ongoing process to devolve funding, responsibilities and powers from central and devolved Governments to the Cardiff capital region. I look forward to continuing to hold discussions with the capital region and the Welsh Government in the future, to build upon today’s agreements.

Copies of the agreement will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS621]

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

1. What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on proposals for a Cardiff city deal.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

The Cardiff city deal represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to raise growth levels right across the region, securing Cardiff’s position as one of the best capital cities in Europe and a fantastic place in which to do business. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and I met leaders from the Cardiff capital region to discuss the city deal and to ensure that progress and momentum are being maintained.

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) has long championed the city deal to help deliver even greater success for Cardiff and Wales, but for it to succeed everyone must be as committed to delivering for Cardiff as he and the Secretary of State so clearly are. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Welsh Assembly Government’s commitment to this city deal and particularly their commitment to funding it?

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I discussed the Cardiff city deal proposal on Monday with the First Minister, and I am pleased and reassured that all parties are now strongly committed to it. I think that there are still some questions to be asked about the nature of the financial commitment coming from the Welsh Government, but there is now momentum behind the deal and we look forward to getting it secured as soon as possible.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

On financial commitment, last month, I asked the Secretary of State whether his Government would match the £580 million that the Welsh Government are putting towards the Cardiff city deal. Has he got a cheque from the Chancellor yet?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am slightly surprised by the hon. Lady’s tone. We have already put £125 million on the table to help with rail electrification. The Welsh Government may want to put that into the pot. We have already put £50 million towards the compound semiconductor catapult centre in Cardiff. There is no question mark over our commitment to securing an ambitious city deal for Cardiff. As I have said, there are some questions about the nature of the Welsh Government’s financial support for such a deal, but I am sure that, with the correct attitude, we can work through those issues and land a deal.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in welcoming the massive announcement that Aston Martin will be building its new vehicle in south Wales. Does that not emphasise the important nature of the private sector involvement in the city deal, and what is he doing to ensure that the Welsh Government and local authorities engage with the private sector so that they lever in more money?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, though, let me put on record our congratulations to him and his wife, Clare, as it is a few days after the birth of their second child. It is wonderful to see him taking a break from paternity leave to stand here today championing the interests of his constituents in Cardiff. He is absolutely right on two counts. The first is on the success of bringing the Aston Martin deal to Wales, which is a great example of the Welsh and the UK Governments working together in a true team Wales approach. The second is on the importance of business and the fact that it is right at the heart not just of helping to create the city deal vision, but of delivering it as well.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Let me pass on my congratulations to the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams). I also congratulate the workforce in the St Athan area—in the seat of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns)—and the Welsh Labour Government on their support for that project, the Cardiff city deal and the Swansea city deal. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the support will be there for Cardiff and for the proposal by Terry Matthews for an “internet coast” that links Swansea and west Wales as well, as that is where we will drive the jobs into Wales?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of different initiatives all together in one question. The common thread running through them was the nature of partnership working, and we need to see more of that. I am talking about the Welsh Government, the UK Government and local partners all working together. The Aston Martin deal shows the fruit that can be borne when we have the right kind of attitude and commitment from the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the Ministry of Defence and excellent local MPs such as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. I have discussed the Swansea city deal with Sir Terry Matthews. We are really interested in understanding it in a bit more detail, and we want to work with the Swansea city deal partners as well as our partners in Cardiff.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Is it not the case that Aston Martin moved to St Athan in the Greater Cardiff region partly because of the success of organisations such as Superfast Cymru, which is delivering fast broadband, and particularly because of the skills that now exist in south Wales?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend, who has a great love for and knowledge of Wales, is right. The most important thing for securing big inward investment projects such as Aston Martin, or the continued inward investment of companies such as Airbus, is the excellence of the skills and the workforce that we have now in Wales. We are not complacent about that. There is more progress that could be achieved, but the reason that such companies choose Wales over locations all round the world is the quality of the skills of the workforce, the quality of the infrastructure and the UK Government’s commitment to creating the best environment for economic growth.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of employment in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of steps taken to rebalance the economy in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

This Government know that supporting our manufacturing industry is vital for rebalancing the economy. Despite challenging global conditions, we have seen 12,000 new manufacturing jobs created by businesses in Wales since 2010, reversing the decline we saw under the previous Labour Government.

[William Wragg]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. How will small businesses in my constituency and in the north-west of England be able to benefit from the economic recovery in north Wales?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the strength of the economic recovery in north Wales. When I travel around Wales, I see that much of what is innovative and exciting is happening in north Wales. We are clear that the economy of north Wales is integrated in a single entity with the economy of north-west England, so there are lots of opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses on both sides of the border to benefit from the emerging northern powerhouse vision. I met the North Wales Business Council earlier this month and, like businesses across north Wales, it is calling out to be part of the northern powerhouse.

[Craig Tracey]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the success of the manufacturing industry in Wales, and across the rest of the UK, reflects a growing global demand for our products and is further evidence of the success of the Government’s ambitious Exporting is GREAT campaign?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is enormous and growing global demand for high-quality products manufactured in Wales. The Government have set ourselves really ambitious targets for increasing the level of UK exports, and I am clear that I want to see Welsh business sharing in that export surge. That is why UK Trade & Investment’s Exporting is GREAT roadshow truck will be in Deeside in north Wales tomorrow, explaining to small businesses there what export opportunities there are around the world.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

One way to rebalance the economy is to decentralise enterprise and services. Therefore, why are the Government closing tax offices and courts in peripheral areas of Wales, given the impact that has on the economy? They talk about decentralisation, but they centralise services when they have the opportunity.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman should understand that the Government have a sacred duty to take care of how taxpayers’ money is spent. Despite all the problems we were left with in 2010, the truth is that we maintain a very strong UK Government footprint in Wales, and the growth in private sector jobs in Wales over the past five years far outstrips any reductions we have seen in public sector employment.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Partial income tax powers are of course a welcome step in helping the UK rebalance geographically, but it is vital that those powers are accompanied by a fiscal framework that genuinely preserves non-detriment to Wales. Given the Scottish Government’s successful struggle to achieve a no-detriment agreement, what specific representations has the Secretary of State received from the Welsh Government on their chosen deduction method, and what is his chosen deduction method? Is it not the case that partial income tax powers make it more difficult to achieve genuine non-detriment?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the need to get the details right—we have just seen a very prolonged negotiation on the Scottish fiscal framework—but that is further down the line. We still have an ongoing discussion with the Welsh Government. They want to avoid taking on any income tax powers whatsoever. They want to avoid the additional fiscal responsibility that that would entail. They are running from having that fuller financial accountability that we believe is really important for Welsh democracy.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

14. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Severn bridge is key to the economy of south Wales, that the debt will be paid back before the April 2018 prediction and that it offers a golden opportunity to reduce tolls for businesses and hard-pressed motorists in Wales?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend, who chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee, has been persistent and effective in raising concerns about the burden imposed on businesses and motorists in Wales by the very high tolls on the Severn bridge. We have not made any final decisions about what will happen when the private sector concession ends at the end of 2017, but we and the Treasury will be very keen to hear any specific ideas that he and members of his Committee might have.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Last year, the Secretary of State said his ambition was to secure more balanced growth in the Welsh economy, but on his watch we are seeing the loss of hundreds of jobs in our strategically important steel industry. The Government are being painfully slow to heed our warnings on cutting energy costs, and weak and disingenuous when it comes to standing up to Chinese dumping. With EU backing given in December, how much longer will the Government delay the energy compensation package the steel industry in Wales so desperately needs?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am really disappointed by the slightly tribal and partisan tone the shadow Secretary of State adopts on this issue. If she wants to talk about what has happened to steel jobs under Conservative and Labour Governments, I am happy to do that, and we can talk about the decline in steel jobs on the watch of previous Labour Governments. I am much more interested in getting answers now to the global storm facing the steel industry. This Government have taken a lead in Europe in changing procurement rules and arguing for protection measures against Chinese dumping. We are making sure that the steel industry in Wales has the best possible chance of a sustainable and profitable future.

[Nia Griffith]

The Government also have a key role in commissioning large infrastructure projects, which can boost manufacturing and rebalance the economy. Manufacturers across Wales, who are gearing up in earnest to supply the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, share my deep concern that the Government are now planning a lengthy review, which could scupper the project altogether. Will the Secretary of State now give us an unequivocal guarantee that this vital project will not be sunk by his Government?

[Stephen Crabb]

I notice that the shadow Secretary of State did not stand up and welcome what we saw yesterday—Her Majesty the Queen naming and opening the new Elizabeth Crossrail line, which, by the way, uses 50,000 tonnes of steel made in Wales by Celsa Steel. The hon. Lady should be absolutely welcoming that as a good example of how UK infrastructure investment can drive growth in the steel industry. On the tidal lagoon review, the chief executive of the Swansea tidal lagoon has welcomed it himself. He welcomes the fact that we are looking into this and exploring all options to see whether the project can be financially viable.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all better informed, albeit at some length.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House and the nation should have heard Mr Howell, and I fear they might not adequately have done so. [Interruption.] No, it will do for today—as long as the Secretary of State heard. But courtesy dictates.

[Stephen Crabb]

I did not hear the full question, but what I did hear was a really important point about fairness when it comes to rebalancing the economy. Unlike previous Labour Governments, who stood by while the economy of the United Kingdom became hopelessly imbalanced towards London and the south-east, we do not think that is good enough. We think that there are talents and resources in the north of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the west of England that need to be captured and enhanced to drive growth in the UK.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of devolving air passenger duty to Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

This Government have a proud record on devolution in Wales: establishing the Silk commission, devolving landmark new fiscal powers and taking forward the St David’s day agreement through the new Wales Bill. In that agreement, we committed to consider the case for devolving APD to Wales and this work is currently being undertaken and assessed by the Treasury.

[Dr Fox]

Devolving air passenger duty will create a market distortion favouring a state-owned airport against a private one. It will damage the economic viability of Bristol airport and have consequential detrimental effects in the south-west. When my right hon. Friend discusses this with the Chancellor, will he gently reflect on the fact that, had our colleagues not made such great gains in the south-west, there would not be a majority Conservative Government?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend, like me, welcomes the fact that the Government are cutting APD in all parts of the UK. However, let us be clear: I want Cardiff airport to be a success story, but I also recognise that there are serious concerns about the effect APD devolution might have on competition issues in relation to Bristol airport.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that north Wales’s local airports are in Liverpool and Manchester? Will he pull his finger out and have meetings to improve connectivity to Manchester airport by rail from north Wales?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am very aware of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. I recently met the north Wales business council precisely to talk about the importance of a rail link from north Wales into Manchester airport. He makes an important point that we are very mindful of.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of trends in the proportion of households in Wales which are workless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

9. When he expects the report of the Macur review to be published.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Lady Justice Macur’s report is being considered as a matter of urgency with a view to publication as soon as possible.

[Ann Clwyd]

Eight young boys in my constituency were abused in the 1980s. They have waited all this time for some conclusions. It is ridiculous that in the past two months Government Departments have been sitting on Lady Macur’s report. What is going on? I understand that redactions are taking place. What confidence can we have that when the report is eventually published it is a true report without interference from Government?

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. We are discussing something incredibly serious and sensitive. Let me put on record my thanks to her for the tireless work that she has put in over the years to fight for justice for those who have suffered horrendous abuse. We are talking about some of the most shameful episodes in the history of the nation of Wales.

We have the report, and it is being looked at by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police. Lady Justice Macur recommended to the Government that certain redactions might need to be made. The commitment that I give to the right hon. Lady and the House today is that we will make redactions only where they are absolutely necessary, and we will provide a full explanation of why we are making those redactions. We owe that to the victims.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

12. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is concern about attention in the report to the language issue? The only attention that was given to the language issue in the Waterhouse report was to say that the children swore a great deal, as well they might have.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is getting into a level of detail about the matter that we can perhaps discuss outside this place on another occasion. Perhaps he and I could meet to talk about that.

[Hywel Williams]

The Wales Council for Voluntary Action criminal records unit, which provides free disclosure and barring checks for the third sector, will close on 31 May. The last paper application will be accepted this Friday. The WCVA has provided a bilingual service, which will cease on Friday. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about that cut?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I want the Welsh language to flourish and be used on a day-to-day basis. I am not familiar with the case that he has raised, but if he wants to drop me a note, I will make sure that it is looked into fully.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the matter of the draft Wales Bill.

May I start by welcoming you to the Chair, Mr Owen? It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. In the past 18 months, while I have been Secretary of State, I have tried not to burden colleagues with too many of these meetings, after taking soundings from Members from Welsh constituencies. We had organised a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee for 1 July, with the aim of discussing the Queen’s Speech and the Budget statement together, but at the request of the then shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pontypridd, that meeting was cancelled.

I am glad we now finally have a chance to meet and to discuss the Bill. Today is an opportunity to update Members on the progress of the draft Wales Bill and for right hon. and hon. Members to make their views known; I look forward to hearing them. The draft Wales Bill is, of course, still undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, and we await the Committee’s report with interest.

Before we get into the real meat of the Bill, I will take a step back to remind Members of what we are doing with the Bill and how we got to this point. It is fair to say that a number of Members—particularly Government Members, myself included—were not initially natural devolutionists, but once it became clear that that was what the people of Wales wanted, we were determined to make Welsh devolution work. In 2011, the coalition Government held the referendum whereby full law- making powers were devolved to the Assembly for the first time.

Following that, the then Wales Office Ministers, my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and for Clwyd West, established the Silk Commission to undertake a broad consultation and to make recommendations on the future direction of devolution in Wales. As Members will be aware, the commission’s first report made recommendations about fiscal devolution that we then took forward in the Wales Act 2014. The Silk Commission’s second report looked more widely at the balance of powers between Westminster and Cardiff and made recommendations on a broad range of areas, from the model of the devolution settlement itself all the way through to specific recommendations about new powers that should be devolved from Westminster to Cardiff.

It is important to note that although the Silk Commission included representatives of the four main political parties in Wales, those representatives had no mandate to bind their parties to the recommendations the commission made. That is why, following the Scottish referendum, I decided to take forward what we called the St David’s day process, to identify the recommendations that could command political consensus. The resulting St David’s day document set a clear path for the future of devolution in Wales, and in the Conservative party’s manifesto last year, we committed to implement the St David’s day agreement in full.

All the main political parties in Wales, at Westminster level and Cardiff level, were involved in the St David’s day discussions, and it would be wrong of any of the parties represented on this Committee to seek to distance themselves from that process. The fact that we decided not to implement the Silk Commission’s recommendations to devolve policing and justice was as much to do with the views of the official Opposition as with ours—the Labour party at the time took a very clear view, as did my party, that we would not take forward those recommendations—and the recommendation in the St David’s day package to devolve fracking licensing had much to do with how hard Plaid Cymru pressed for it to be included. The fingerprints of all the main parties in Wales are on the St David’s day document.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I agree fully with the Secretary of State’s point on policing. Can he explain the status of the St David’s day process? Did he see it as determining—defining—what the Bill would be, or was that, as I and my right hon. Friend Elfyn Llwyd recall, a matter of consultation with the Opposition parties and fully owned by the Government who wrote it?

[Stephen Crabb]

Of course we own the Bill that we write. The purpose of being a Government is to write legislation. The hon. Gentleman will recall that what was enumerated in the St David’s day document was a recommendation about a set of powers that all parties agreed on. We were absolutely clear throughout the process and on the day that the Prime Minister and the then Deputy Prime Minister made the announcement in Cardiff that it was entirely up to other parties to go further than the St David’s day recommendations. In fairness to Plaid Cymru, they did that. In fairness to the Liberal Democrats, their manifesto at last year’s general election went further than St David’s day. St David’s day represented a baseline around which the process showed consensus among all parties.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the Secretary of State think that the St David’s day process was more comprehensive than the Silk Commission, which took a number of years and consulted widely with the people of Wales and all political parties, whereas the St David’s day agreement was a couple of backroom meetings with Westminster politicians?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman can caricature the discussions in that way if he wants to, but he will remember that they were a lot more meaningful and substantive than he gives them credit for. The Silk Commission, which my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham and for Clwyd West established, took a broad range of evidence not just from politicians but from stakeholders, who included representative of the parties. If hon. Members read the Silk document, as I have done several times in great detail, they will see that some of the recommendations lack a lot of detail; some of them do not give a precise, clear policy steer. There is a lot of good in the Silk Commission documents, but it is up to elected politicians to decide how to take forward the recommendations, which is why the official Opposition, the Labour party, could not sign up to the recommendations around the devolution of policing and justice.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I think there were rather more than two meetings, and I am not sure they were quite as characterised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. However, with hindsight and given some of the problems the Secretary of State has encountered since the publication of the draft Bill, does he regret that the St David’s day process was not more inclusive of our colleagues in the National Assembly?

[Stephen Crabb]

The process was inclusive. I had discussions with them in Cardiff Bay as a group; we had discussions in this place with the Cardiff Bay leaders of the parties; and I met them all individually as well, so it was a process that encompassed both the Cardiff Bay bit of the Welsh political parties and Westminster.

The Conservative party went into last year’s general election with a clear package of new powers that we put to voters and the people of Wales made their decisions at the election. The package included putting in place an historic funding floor in the relative level of Welsh funding, as we committed to do in the St David’s day agreement. Members will recall that during Labour’s leadership election last year, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) revealed that when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury he knew that Wales was being sold short by the Barnett formula but admitted that he could not do anything about it. It took Conservatives in government to do something about the Barnett formula and bring forward an historic funding floor.

The St David’s day package also included making further progress on income tax. Hon. Members will know that in his autumn statement the Chancellor announced a decision to remove the referendum requirement for devolving a portion of income tax to Wales. We are doing that in recognition that the debate has moved on from the Wales Act 2014, and because we believe that income tax devolution will help deliver more accountable, responsible devolved government for Wales. Within the mature devolution settlement that the draft Bill will deliver, the Welsh Government simply cannot continue to be a purely spending Department. They need to take responsibility for raising money as well as spending it.

As part of the devolution package, we are also legislating for a new reserved powers model through the Wales Bill. Hon. Members for Welsh constituencies who have been in this House for a number of terms will recall that the call for a reserved powers model has been around for some time. I remember during discussion of the Bill that became the Wales Act 2014 a former Secretary of State, the former Member for Torfaen, saying on the Floor of the House, “Now is the time to move to a reserved powers model.” That was, of course, before we took forward the St David’s day process. At that time I warned that simply moving to a reserved powers model, in and of itself, is not a panacea. It does not fix all the complexities around the Welsh devolution settlement—in fact, moving to a reserved powers model throws up new complexities. It is not a quick fix that clarifies Welsh devolution. The detail of the wiring underneath is what matters, and that is where a lot of the controversy around the current Bill lies.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

On reserved powers, does the Secretary of State agree that it certainly does not bring clarification if there are 34 pages of reservations in the Bill?

[Stephen Crabb]

I broadly agree with that sentiment, but looking at the Scottish settlement, the list of reservations is also pretty long in the Scotland Act 1998. The point is to get the reservations right, spelling out which Government is responsible for what. We should not get hung up on how long the list is.

I said in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee and to the Welsh Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that the list of reservations is one of the things I want to look at, along with the necessity test and ministerial consent, so that we get the detail right as we move from a draft Bill to a full one.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, interventions should be short. Those intending to speak later are eating into their own time and that of other Members.

[Stephen Crabb]

It would not be the first time I get tripped up on the subject of night-time entertainment. The whole purpose of publishing a draft Bill is to address issues such as that. When we include a list of reservations in the Bill, what is the balance to be struck around broad drafting of a policy area and being specific so that it is spelled out clearly? The hon. Member for Arfon highlights a very specific example. The less specific we are, the more scope there is for vagueness. If one of the objectives of the Bill is to put far more specificity into the devolution settlement for Wales than there is at the moment, there will be times when we have to spell out in detail what those reservations are. We are looking at all the reservations at the moment.

Pre-legislative scrutiny has shone a spotlight on what I think is becoming a new orthodoxy in Cardiff Bay around Welsh devolution, so I would like to spend a few moments addressing that. There is now a view in Cardiff Bay that the Supreme Court, through the agricultural wages decision, has effectively redrawn the devolution boundary way beyond what Parliament intended for the Welsh devolution settlement, and in some respects way beyond the Scottish devolution settlement. I discussed that with the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly and her team on Monday, asking her specifically, “Do you now regard the Supreme Court as having effectively redrawn that devolution boundary beyond what the Scottish devolution settlement is?” Their response was that, yes, that is their view. That was never the intention of Parliament when Labour Ministers drafted the existing devolution settlement, nor is it this Government’s position. We believe that it is the role of elected politicians to draw the devolution boundary, and not the role of the courts and judges to decide where the devolution boundary is.

An important purpose of the Bill is to make it clear where the boundary lies and to bring an end to the confusion and argument about which Administration, Cardiff or London, is responsible for which areas of policy. Regardless of whether parties in the Assembly or in this place choose to try to block the draft Bill, no one should underestimate the Government’s intention to fix where the devolution boundary lies. We are not willing to carry on with a situation where the boundary is unclear for large swathes of policy and where the settlement is silent on which Administration is responsible for which area.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear what the Secretary of State is saying, but does he agree that the Welsh people’s consent was given by the most recent referendum in which they argued that more, not less, devolution should occur? He is now arguing that we should move backwards, behind that battle line, and in fact many laws that have been passed in Wales would not have been passed under the legislation he is now proposing.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman’s charge is untrue on so many levels. The Conservative-led coalition Government held the referendum and we recognise that that was a game changer in terms of devolution for Wales. A large majority of people who participated in that referendum voted for full law-making powers in the areas that were devolved. They were never asked to agree that the devolution boundaries should be redrawn. It is the role of elected Governments to make decisions about where the devolution boundary lies.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

How does the Secretary of State expect the Assembly to function as a law-making body without the ability to change the laws?

[Stephen Crabb]

We absolutely do want it to be a law-making body. We want it to have the freedom to give expression to its law-making powers. That means having the ability to change the law to enforce its legislation—I think that is the point the hon. Lady is getting at. Nothing in the Bill prevents the devolved Government from doing that. We do not want inhibitions around the Welsh Government making law in the areas that are devolved to them. However, when there are spillover effects from making law, the Bill, rightly in my view, raises a safeguard—a boundary, a hurdle—so that those spillover effects are not more than is necessary.

[Jonathan Edwards]

rose—

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stephen Crabb]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who is shortly to be a Member of the Assembly.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed, I have a vested interest in this in more ways than one. The Secretary of State is trying valiantly to play a very difficult hand, but I suspect he is running out of cards. How does he respond to this week’s report that highlighted in depth, with detailed analysis, both fundamental and detailed points of principle that were wrong? The conclusion was that that suggests an unwillingness to take Wales seriously. I ask him, in all seriousness, how he responds to that.

[Stephen Crabb]

I respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying, in all seriousness, that this Government take Wales very seriously. We take Wales so seriously that we did not do what his Administration did, when he was a Minister in the previous Labour Government, and bury our heads in the sand over the inequities of the Barnett formula. They have admitted that they were unwilling to address that issue. We are bringing forward the funding floor. This Government took the decision to have a referendum for the people of Wales on having full law-making powers.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

This Bill does not do it.

[Stephen Crabb]

In the details of the report that came out today, and in other academic reports, there are some good and important points. We have taken the report away and are looking at it very closely. The whole point of having pre-legislative scrutiny is to use it as an opportunity to think again and take views from a very broad range of stakeholders.

I have to say, having read some of the evidence presented to the Welsh Affairs Committee and to the Welsh Assembly’s Committee, sometimes the people giving that evidence are asking a different question from the question we are asking. The question they are asking is, “How do we craft a piece of legislation that expands the remit of Welsh government and Welsh law-making?” If that is your only question, of course you will find failings and limitations in the Bill. If you are trying to balance that question with the question of how to regulate the interface between the two legitimate Governments for Wales: the UK Government and the Welsh Government—how to ensure clarity about who is responsible for what, how to build in respect for the devolution settlement so that we do not get Governments crossing over one another’s boundaries, changing each other’s functions without a clear consenting process in place—then you cannot avoid coming up with some of the procedures and mechanisms in the Bill.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Secretary of State is a well-known pragmatist; I was hoping he would come to the Committee this morning with a slightly more flexible approach, but it seems to me as if he is digging a trench around the Bill as it stands. As he knows, even his own party will vote against the Bill in the legislative consent motion when it comes before the Assembly. Will he respect the vote in the National Assembly if his party decides not to support the Bill?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to take me down a road that we are not going down today. On the earlier point of his intervention, as I said to the Welsh Affairs Committee and to the Assembly’s Committee, we will be using this process to look again at some of the details and I have listed three broad areas that we are looking at: reservations, ministerial consents and the necessity test. My purpose today is to remind Members from Wales, who perhaps have not participated in the Welsh Affairs Committee proceedings or followed what the Assembly Committee has been saying, of some of the broad principles behind our approach to what is a really complicated and difficult issue.

The second bit of what I regard as a new, emerging orthodoxy in Cardiff Bay is this: they believe that the Welsh Government and the National Assembly should have completely unfettered freedom to legislate in devolved areas. They believe that they should have complete freedom in those policy areas that are clearly the competence of the Welsh Government. That is a proposition I agree with and am very comfortable with. I want the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly to exercise their law-making powers freely. I do not agree with what they then go on to say about these law-making powers—that when Welsh legislation has a spillover effect in affecting reserved matters, in affecting the law as it applies to England or in the way it affects the underlying principles of English and Welsh law—the single jurisdiction—somehow the Welsh Government should have the unfettered ability to make changes in those areas.

That is what the necessity test in this Bill is designed to do—not to stop the Assembly enforcing its legislation, but to make clear where the boundaries of their competence lie. However, this test has now become a point of warfare because they do not believe there should be any boundary or safeguard to those powers. When I put the question to them—when I asked the Presiding Officer and Carwyn Jones why the Welsh Assembly should have unfettered ability to make law without having any regard to the impacts on England or on reserved matters—I simply got a shrug of the shoulders in response. That is not a proposition that we can endorse.

The Bill is not designed to serve the agendas of those who believe that the next stage of devolution should be about driving a wedge between England and Wales and creating more separation. The purpose of the Bill is to provide clarity and to ensure that the two legitimate Governments for Wales, the UK Government and the Welsh Government, can work together in clarity so that Ministers in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster understand which areas of policy they are responsible for.

The answer to the complexities around this is not, as the First Minister now suggests, to create a separate legal jurisdiction. A separate jurisdiction would be expensive, unnecessary and, in the words of a partner of a major law firm in Cardiff, would result in a flight of legal talent from Wales. Let us be clear. If the Labour party had won the general election and had taken forward a devolution Bill, it would not be entertaining the creation of a separate jurisdiction.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. The First Minister has not advocated a separate legal jurisdiction. He has talked of a distinct legal jurisdiction, as indeed have the Constitutional Affairs Committee at the Assembly and all the Members of the Assembly, including all the Conservative Members, and that was backed in a motion at the Assembly.

[The Chair]

That is not a point of order, but it is very welcome and I am sure the Secretary of State will want to respond.

[Stephen Crabb]

I will, and I will be very clear. In my discussions with Carwyn Jones, he told me that he regards “distinct” and “separate” as the same thing. They are words. He said that he regards a distinct and separate jurisdiction as amounting in practical terms to the same thing.

What I do believe is that as the body of Welsh-specific law grows, the judicial system will need to take account of the distinctiveness within Wales. I have discussed that with the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor here. Work is needed to ensure effective delivery of the justice function in Wales to take account of the growing body of Welsh law, but that does not necessarily lead to a path of separate jurisdiction and splitting the single England and Wales jurisdiction, which has served the people of Wales well for centuries.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Surely we need to look more closely at what “separate” and “distinct” mean. “Separate” implies a different legal profession with a whole new set of courts. “Distinct” does not have to mean that. What we are hearing from the Assembly is “distinct”. All the requirements that go alongside that—necessity clauses—are what we would require to make this Bill work.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady, for whom I have huge respect, is very knowledgeable about legal and constitutional matters. If, through the Select Committee of which she is a member or independently, she would like to provide me with details of what she regards as a distinct jurisdiction, we can measure it against what other people are saying they regard as a distinct jurisdiction.

Part of the problem is that no one knows what “distinct jurisdiction” means. We understand what “separate jurisdiction” means, but people are bandying about this term “distinct jurisdiction” as if it is now the answer, in the same way as people used to say, “We need a reserved powers model; that will sort out Welsh devolution” without thinking of the complexity underneath it. People are now saying “separate jurisdiction” or “distinct jurisdiction” without really having thought through what it means.

[Hywel Williams]

The Secretary of State is being generous with his time. He has conceded that there is a growing body of Welsh law that will need to be responded to and he says he has had discussions with the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. Can he give the Committee an indication of when these considerations will come to fruition, so that we have clarity on the nature of our Welsh law and Welsh jurisdiction, whether distinct, separate or whatever? Does he see this as part of the full Bill when it comes before the House or over the horizon?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We are in the early stages of that work and we are having discussions about it with a view to being clear about what distinctive arrangements Wales needs to make sure there is effective delivery of justice in Wales that takes account of the growing body of Welsh law. We will make some announcements about that in due course, but that work does not need to happen within the context of the Bill. It does not need to be put into legislation to give effect to it. A lot of practical work can just be got on with fairly quickly.

Ministerial consent is another controversial area in the Bill that we are looking at again. Let me put on the record some thoughts about it. Much has been said about the consent requirements in the draft Wales Bill. They are intended to provide flexibility for the Assembly to legislate but with a demarcation of responsibility between the Assembly and the UK Government. It is only right that the Minister’s consent is required to amend the functions of reserved bodies that are accountable to UK Ministers, just as it is right that the UK Government seek the Assembly’s consent to make changes to the law in devolved areas.

I am told that when making legislation that changes the responsibilities of UK Ministers or the functions or duties of a reserved body—a public body that is the responsibility of a UK Minister—the Welsh Government should have the ability to do that without the relevant UK Minister in Whitehall being able to have any say on that. To any fair-minded Welsh man or woman, that is not a reasonable proposition, because the United Kingdom Government are responsible for those areas of policy. However, this seems to be emerging as the new consensus in Cardiff Bay. We are told that we need to take away the draft Bill and remove the consenting requirements. The threat is that the Bill will be blocked if there is any attempt to make the Welsh Government more responsible in making changes to things that are the responsibility of UK Ministers. We do not believe that is a credible position.

I know from my discussions with business leaders and others in Wales that there is a large body of pragmatic and reasonable opinion on devolution, which does not endorse the rhetoric and criticism of the Bill that is coming out of Cardiff Bay which says the Welsh Government should be able to change the functions of a UK Minister, and change the duties and functions of a UK public body that is the responsibility of a UK Minister, without any consenting requirement. This is about basic respect for the devolution settlement. It is a key principle of ours that we respect the Welsh Government in recognising the areas for which they are responsible. When we make legislation in this place that touches on devolved areas, there is rightly a process of seeking the consent of the Welsh Government. We believe that the principle should work in reverse. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposition.

We have hit a number of major stumbling blocks with the Bill on the differences of viewpoint between how we see the devolution settlement working and how the Cardiff Bay Welsh Government want it to work. They believe that the draft Bill should give legislative effect to the new consensus that they believe in with the expanded devolution boundary that they believe the Supreme Court has given them with the ability to make law unfettered that affects reserved matters or England without any hurdle or boundary or safeguard around that, or any requirement for consent. That is not something that we can go along with.

I appeal to Members of this place and Assembly Members to try to understand the devolution settlement from the viewpoint of the interests of the UK Government, in the same way as I have spent a lot of time trying to understand the devolution settlement from the perspective of Cardiff Bay and the Assembly,

I am going to wrap up there to allow other Members to speak. We have heard language such as “English veto”. There is nothing in the Bill which provides for an English veto. When the First Minister uses that phrase, he is talking about the UK Government—the UK Parliament. He is saying that all of us sitting here are English—the hon. Member for Newport West is English, and the hon. Member for Llanelli is English, because they are part of the UK Government. Let us be absolutely clear—this goes to the core of my approach to the Wales Bill—Wales has two legitimate Governments: the UK Government, who exist for the benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales; and the devolved Welsh Government, who exist to create law in devolved areas. The purpose of the legislation is to create clarity and respect about the roles of those Governments. It is not to delegitimise and push back the role of the UK Government and say that Wales has an elected Government in Cardiff Bay who are the primary legitimate Government for Wales.

[Mr Mark Williams]

The Secretary of State talks about respect and says he hopes our colleagues in the National Assembly will be listening to what he says as much as we are here today. Does that extend now to a meaningful dialogue with the Assembly and the officials at the National Assembly on the core issues he has identified—the necessity test and ministerial consents and reservations? I do not doubt the primacy of this place to make the law, but will a meaningful dialogue remedy those issues with the National Assembly now?

[Stephen Crabb]

My door is always open. I do not think anybody has tried to bend over backwards and be pragmatic and flexible on this stuff more than I have. I have spent the past 18 months moving the position of the UK Government, compromising on a number of very key areas that have proved controversial. From our perspective, it feels as if we have made all the movements on our side, and we have run into the buffers of stubbornness and a lack of reasonableness.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Would not the Secretary of State’s argument carry a great deal more force if he were not the Secretary of State who had colluded in diminishing the rights of Members of Parliament from Wales to have a voice on issues that directly affect our constituents? Is not what he says about English votes for English laws and the lack of consultation that took place with Members an absolute disgrace?

[Stephen Crabb]

I do not know how to dignify that question with a response. It is a nice try to attempt to confuse the issues before us today.

I will wrap up my remarks after I have reiterated my answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion. I am determined to get the legislation in a position that not only Assembly Members and the Welsh Government, but Members here are comfortable with—a piece of legislation that strikes the right balance and achieves our aims, which I think most fair-minded people in Wales would agree with. I will not allow this legislation, through the force of criticism from Cardiff Bay, to be changed into a piece of legislation that we are not comfortable with. As I said previously, if the Labour party were in power in the UK, its members would not take forward a Bill that delivers a separate jurisdiction. They would not be doing things that the Welsh Government are calling for.

[Kevin Brennan]

(Cardiff West) (Lab): As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, these matters are intertwined. For example, 9,000 English students, many of whom are registered to vote in Cardiff, attend Cardiff University. In the recent vote we had in this House on their student maintenance grants, Welsh Members were effectively denied the opportunity to influence the ultimate outcome of that vote. Those students, who are disfranchised, have no one to vote for them. Their MP cannot represent them in such a vote because the students are registered to vote in Wales. Does the draft Bill do anything to re-enfranchise the people this Government are disfranchising?

[Stephen Crabb]

If we follow the logic of what the hon. Member for Cardiff West just said, it is an argument against devolution in the first place. Arguments about those kinds of disparities were exactly the kinds of arguments made by people who opposed devolution in the first place. The health service is another example of one of the challenges of devolution. There are English residents who are patients in Wales and Welsh residents who are patients in England. Devolution throws up those complexities. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. There have to be certain consents and criteria, but our difficulty with the Bill is that it does not provide the clarity that we all want in legislation.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady just said. Is she saying therefore that she supports the retention of some kind of test, whether that is necessity or some other formula, or does she want to remove it altogether?

[Nia Griffith]

Our worry is that we might turn the clock back to a time pre-2006. The purpose of the Bill is to define powers, but what we have at the moment is confusing. That confusion has arisen for several reasons, but particularly with regard to the non-devolution of certain parts of the law.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West, she appeared to say that we clearly need some kind of test. Is it her view, and the view of her party, that, whether it is the necessity test or another formula that commands legal respect, we need some kind of boundary or legal phrasing in the Bill, rather than no test at all?

[Nia Griffith]

We need a framework that successfully explains to people what it actually is, not one that is confused and suggests, for example, that we might be looking at Bills that have been passed in the Assembly such as the Renting Homes (Wales) Bill.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady has made strong points about the need for clarity by posing a specific question, which she now appears to have muddied. Does she support having some kind of test around the spillover impact when the Welsh Government make law that affects reserved areas, England, and civil and criminal law? Does she support having some kind of test within the framework?

[Nia Griffith]

There has to be some sort of framework to define exactly where the Welsh Government can legislate. What we do not want is a situation where we continually dispute that, as that would not help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I will not give way any more. It is for the Secretary of State to introduce better legislation. It is simply undemocratic to go continually to the Supreme Court, because it is not for judges to decide this, that or the other about what can be subject to legislation. We want legislation that makes the position clear, rather than having to go to court time after time.

The real problem is the sense that we are going back pre-2006, and rolling back things that have been introduced by the Assembly in the past few years. The Welsh Government have listed no fewer than 14 Acts in this Assembly’s term that would require additional permission from Whitehall if the Bill were in force. The Secretary of State has said that this is all about respect, but where is the respect in making it harder for the democratically elected Assembly to pass laws? The people of Wales did not vote in 1997 and 2011 for a Welsh Assembly hamstrung by Whitehall, able to legislate but only when UK Ministers allowed it. That completely undermines the autonomy of the Assembly and is a major step backwards. As Conservative Assembly Member David Melding has highlighted, that ends with the constitutionally unacceptable position of UK Ministers, who are not accountable to Assembly Members, telling the Assembly what it can and cannot do.

Of course, ministerial consent exists under the current system, but if the Secretary of State really wants to clarify and simplify the settlement, he would clear up the consent process. As the Silk Commission recommended, there should be general transfer of ministerial functions in devolved areas from Whitehall to Cardiff Bay, just as happened in the Scotland Act. The Secretary of State has given no good reason why Wales should be treated any worse than Scotland.

The Bill would make the system significantly more complicated, with the effect of rolling back the Assembly’s powers. In the words of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee:

“It is clear to us that the cumulative effect of the approach being adopted…is to reduce the Assembly’s legislative competence.”

Yet again the Bill would fail to deliver a fair and lasting settlement. Instead, it would take powers away from Wales and make it harder for the Assembly to do its job.

Let us turn to the reservations themselves. A primary purpose of the Bill is to introduce a reserved powers model, in order to bring greater clarity to the devolution settlement. The Silk Commission report says:

“In a reserved powers model, the settlement would set out clearly the limits of devolved competence. We would expect law-makers to legislate with greater confidence…rather than being constrained by uncertainty”.

Clarity is about the last thing that comes to mind when reading the 34 pages of reservations in the Bill, covering 267 separate powers, on everything from Antarctica to zebra crossings. Everyone agrees that the list is far too long. Indeed, Angela Burns, the Conservative Assembly Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, has described the list as unworkable. She said:

“The reservations, as they stand, will hinder the development of policy, will impact on the coherence and unity of legislation and will, in my view, muddy the waters between legislatures.”

Even the Secretary of State has said:

“When I read through the list of reservations I can see for myself that there are things where I think, you know, ‘For goodness’ sake, why is that being held back as reserved?’”

It is his Bill.

[Stephen Crabb]

Draft Bill.

[Nia Griffith]

As a bare minimum, we should expect the Secretary of State to have confidence in his own draft legislation, not to rush forward with some half-baked set of reservations that not even he supports.

The failure of the Wales Office to challenge Departments to explain what needs to be reserved, not just what they want to have reserved, is quite remarkable. In the words of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee:

“The absence of a principled approach has contributed to the excessive number and complexity of the reservations.”

In this week’s report by the Wales Governance Centre and University College London, they describe the failure to think rationally about what needs to be reserved as a “fundamental defect” in the Bill.

Perhaps if the Secretary of State and his Department commanded more respect in Whitehall we would not have ended up with a shoddy list of reservations that literally no one supports.

The biggest problem with the reservations is the completely ill-advised decision to reserve the entirety of criminal and civil law. That makes absolutely no sense and is the clearest example of the Bill rolling back the Assembly’s powers. The Assembly is a law-making body, so preventing it from having any ability to change the law is both illogical and unacceptable. It reduces the status of the Assembly to a second-class legislature. It is directly contrary to the Silk Commission’s warning that the reserved powers model must

“do nothing to restrict the existing and future ability of the National Assembly to create criminal sanctions where it is necessary”.

The rationale behind the decision to reserve the entirety of the law is given in the explanatory notes. The Bill seeks to provide

“a general level of protection for the unified legal system of England and Wales, whilst allowing the Assembly some latitude to modify these areas of law”.

But the 2011 referendum was about giving the Assembly full powers to legislate in the areas devolved to it, not some latitude to modify the law. So the Secretary of State needs to reconsider this crucial aspect of the Bill. One solution would be to introduce a distinct legal jurisdiction for Wales, as recommended by the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and endorsed unanimously by the Assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I would welcome the opportunity to have another look at how the Bill could work, but what I want to hear from the Secretary of State is a willingness to be more open about that, rather than digging this big trench around himself and saying that he is not going to change this, not going to change that, and not going to change the Bill radically.

[Stephen Crabb]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, because I am enjoying her speech a lot, but just to clarify, at no point have I said that I am not going to change this and not going to change that. She has put words in my mouth there. What I have said today is that there are areas of the Bill which we need to look at and change—I have said that very clearly—but also there are fundamental principles behind what we are trying to do, in ensuring the integrity of the UK Government and Parliament and the integrity of the Welsh Government and Assembly.

[Nia Griffith]

The problem is that we had the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire telling us that he may not even vote for the Bill; he describes it as an abysmal failure. We had the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd, for Brecon and Radnorshire, for Monmouth, and for Gower—I see he has left his place—and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West, all saying publicly that the income tax devolution that will be included in the final Bill is disrespectful to the Welsh people. So there is utter chaos on the Conservative Benches about the Bill. It is a remarkable situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I cannot say because I was not here at that time, but that is what I understand.

It is interesting that the menu on offer considers water to be too valuable a resource to be left in the hands of the people of Wales, but—fair play—it gives us control over sewage.

I have many concerns regarding the current list of reserved policy fields and will return to this later in my contribution, but I will start by focusing on the foundations of the draft Bill. I should stress first that Plaid Cymru warmly welcomes the move to a reserved powers model as a matter of principle; that is, to move away from the current model whereby the devolution settlement lists areas where the Assembly can legislate, to a model in which the settlement lists areas where it cannot.

There was an unusual and welcome consensus across all six of Wales’s biggest parties on the need to move to a reserved powers model over a number of years. This consensus stems from the frequency with which Welsh legislation is challenged in the Supreme Court and the lack of clarity on where responsibility lies, especially when compared with the Scottish dispensation. Moving to a reserved powers model was also about shifting the mentality and attitudes towards devolution. It should put the onus on the UK Government to justify why something should be reserved, rather than justifying why something might be devolved—devolution based on subsidiarity rather than on retention.

However, those principles—the foundations of the argument in favour of a reserved powers model—have been lost, and the result is a Bill that is simply not fit for purpose. We have unfortunately gone from a position as recently as May last year where all four parties represented in this Chamber today, as well as UKIP and the Greens, agreed on a way forward, to a position where, I am sad to say, it appears the Secretary of State is the only person who thinks the Bill delivers a workable settlement.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady is making a good and important speech. Agreeing on moving to a reserved powers model, to use her phrase, is the easy bit. Of course, everybody can sign up to the principle of moving to a reserved powers model. The really hard bit is doing the wiring underneath it. How do you do that in the context of preserving the combined England and Wales jurisdiction? Even if one moves down the road of a distinct or separate jurisdiction, one does not get over the complexities. The hard bit is doing the detailed work to get the wiring right to make the reserved powers more able to work.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Perhaps that is why the Presiding Officer of the Assembly has asked for a consolidation of previous Welsh legislation, because we are effectively building on the previous conferred models and trying to build a reserved model out of that. That is part of the problem we face. I will return to distinct legislation anon.

We are facing a draft Bill that claws back the powers for which the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour in 2011; a draft Bill that, had it been implemented in that year would have required 20% of the current Assembly’s Acts to seek the consent of UK Government Ministers. We are facing a draft Bill that would allow Welsh legislation to be enacted only if it passes no fewer than 10, or perhaps a debatable number of tests on each provision within the Bill in question—certainly a wide range, a battery, of tests. Incidentally, distinguished legal experts have described the tests as

“a failure of comparative legal method”

and claimed that they

“jar with basic constitutional principle”.

Members of the Welsh Affairs Committee have been warned that this could lead to situations whereby legislators would choose to avoid amending the law—a chilling effect—despite it being the better option, for fear of opening a Pandora’s box of debate about what constitutes “necessary”.

Perhaps the most concerning legal aspect of the draft Bill is the reservation of criminal law and private law. These are not policy reservations, they are mechanisms—means—necessary for the enforcement of law. They are what animates the law. They will put policies into effect. They were not discussed as part of the St David’s day process, and, as Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin told the Welsh Affairs Committee, the introduction of these restrictions

“appears to deliberately ignore the express decision of the people of Wales regarding their Assembly’s legislative powers”.

Placing restrictions on the Assembly’s ability to make such modifications to the law not only drastically rows back on the 2011 referendum, but also restricts directly elected Welsh Governments from implementing their policies. It is no wonder that so many people have described the Bill as unworkable.

In fairness, it is proposed that the Assembly should be able to make modifications where such modification is:

“(a) necessary for a devolved purpose or is ancillary…to a provision which has a devolved purpose, and (b) has no greater effect on the general application of the private law than is necessary to give effect to that purpose.”

Simple. I hope Members will have detected that I did not understand what I have just said, although I may have said it with confidence. It asks the question of who is to decide whether a modification to the law is necessary for a devolved purpose or whether a modification has no greater effect than is necessary to give effect to a provision’s purpose. This is not a matter of semantics and niceties; it is a lawyers’ playground.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I will come to that anon, rather than trying to answer briefly and then repeating myself. As I said, this is a lawyers’ playground and, exactly as the Secretary of State said earlier, means that we will end up in the Supreme Court, which is what we do not want.

[Stephen Crabb]

Nobody has argued more forcefully than Plaid Cymru that the Welsh devolution settlement should mirror the Scottish devolution settlement. However, the necessity test, which the hon. Lady has taken a few minutes to malign and attack, appears in the Scottish devolution settlement.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It does appear in the Scottish devolution settlement but it appears three times in the draft Bill. In Scotland, it refers to reserved matters but here, it also refers to criminal and private law. That is the significant question.

I challenge anyone to justify making a Government accountable to a judge rather than to a legislature, as the draft Bill effectively promotes. The report released this week by the Wales governance centre at Cardiff University and the constitution unit at UCL states:

“To restrict the choice of National Assembly members in matters likely to form parts of a great many Assembly Acts may be said to undercut their role as primary legislators, and to deny the institution…proper esteem in ‘the union of the nations of Wales and England’.”

The reasons that these mechanisms are listed as reserved is, according to the Secretary of State,

“to protect the unified legal system of England and Wales”.

All the criticisms that the Secretary of State has faced since the publication of the draft Bill—the cries of “unworkable,” “badly drafted,” “overly complex,” and so on—are a consequence of his blind loyalty to preserving the unified legal system, which has almost unanimously been described to the Welsh Affairs Committee by the legal profession as unnecessary, damaging and paradoxical.

Plaid Cymru, along with many legal experts, believes that it would be a sensible and—crucially—sustainable solution to create a separate legal system for Wales and the Welsh legislature. As the Wales governance centre’s report says,

“it would bring Wales more into the mainstream of sub-state constitutional arrangements in the common law world”.

It is noteworthy that that is also the long-term aim of the Labour Welsh Government.

We acknowledge that it would have financial and practical implications that would need careful consideration but, if the UK Government are serious about delivering a devolution settlement that stands the test of time, they need to adopt a long-term approach. Although that would be Plaid Cymru’s preferred solution, we recognise that not all parties have caught up with our position. The same cannot be said, however, of the creation of a so-called distinct but not separate jurisdiction. The evidence that the Welsh Affairs Committee has heard has been overwhelmingly in favour of this solution, as has that heard by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in the National Assembly. I suspect that those who remain sceptical of this solution mistakenly fear the practical and financial implications that a separate jurisdiction might have, and do not fully understand—or perhaps do not want to fully understand—the simplicity of what is actually being proposed.

Creating a distinct jurisdiction need not be any more complicated—perhaps this is the definition that we have been looking for—than simply acknowledging in statute the existence of the law of Wales and the law of England that extend to the territory of Wales and the territory of England respectively.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Because we are arguing about the leeway and lock model, and the necessity clauses in criminal and private law, and that is creating so much complication. With this acknowledgment, we could move ahead.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly intelligent speech. I was struck by what she said about the geographical boundary and that moving to a distinct jurisdiction is as simple as that. Would she acknowledge that the Welsh Government, through their law making in the Assembly, have the ability to have impacts on reserved matters and matters affecting England? The draft Bill preserves that, albeit with a necessity test. What she is proposing with that geographically sharp distinction ends their freedom to do that altogether.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It does seem to be a way forward in dealing with the necessity clauses, which are such a problem. The territory acknowledgement—

[Stephen Crabb]

That is rolling back.

Draft Wales Bill

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for my first Welsh Grand Committee, Mr Hanson.

Our starting point has to be what the Secretary of State for Wales says in the foreword to the draft Wales Bill:

“We are determined to ensure the people of Wales have a clear and lasting devolution settlement… For too long Welsh politics has been dominated by constitutional debates about what is and is not devolved.”

I fear that, as it is, the draft Wales Bill is likely to create more and more debate, much of which will end up before the UK Supreme Court unless stringent and significant changes are made to the Bill. I shall give a few examples, starting with the issue of ministerial consent.

The provisions on ministerial consent on page 73 of the draft Bill mean that if the Assembly wants to legislate in a way that affects the power of a UK Government Minister, it must first ask for consent. In and of itself, that creates great uncertainty, because the powers of UK Government Ministers are set out in hundreds of statutes. Let me give one example of the kind of absurd consequences that could arise and why the provisions are an example of devolution being rolled back, not forward: the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014. Reservation 184 in the draft Bill is about arbitration. Section 7 of the 2014 Act contains a dispute resolution procedure to resolve disagreements between horse owners and local authorities. Under the draft Bill, that Act would have to be subject to ministerial consent. There we have it: horses in Wales having to be subject to a UK Government Minister in London. I do not know the Secretary of State’s view on horses, but no doubt we will have to find out if the draft Bill becomes a permanent fixture.

The Silk Commission said that one way to resolve uncertainties would be to transfer the powers in the devolved areas. I urge the Secretary of State to look at ministerial consents to see whether there can be such a simplification. Otherwise, we will simply be piling up work for the UK Supreme Court.

In an intervention on the Secretary of State this morning, I raised the issue of reserved powers. Yes, of course, a reserved powers model can work extremely well. I think the right hon. Member for Clwyd West pointed out that my predecessor as MP for Torfaen, who was twice Secretary of State for Wales, had spoken about the reserved powers model. There is nothing wrong with the model. The problem is that, first, it has to be pretty clear and, secondly, the number of powers that are and are not reserved has to be in line with the expectations of the Welsh people.

Conservative Assembly Member David Melding said of the reserved powers in the draft Bill:

“They are numerous. Quite literally, they cannot be counted, although most who have attempted enumeration put the figure somewhere above 250. This is ominous.”

The Secretary of State really should take that into account as he looks at how he can redraft the Bill. Dame Rosemary Butler put it this way:

“there is significant roll-back in the reservations themselves. A large number of matters which are not exceptions from the Assembly’s current competence have been made into reserved matters in the draft Bill.”

That is devolution being rolled back.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point and refers to comments by the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly. Does he agree with the Presiding Officer’s presumption that all of those silent subjects were intended to be devolved, and therefore the Supreme Court judgment on the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill effectively makes all of those subjects devolved now if they can be linked in some way to a devolved purpose? Alternatively, does he agree with me that we should go back and understand Parliament’s intentions in making the existing devolution settlement and then extend the devolution boundary by a political process, rather than rely on the courts?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With the greatest of respect to the Secretary of State, I do not think he has quite picked up the point I am making, which is this: the Assembly has already legislated on a number of matters that, under this Bill, it will have to seek his consent to legislate on. Another example of where his consent would have been required is the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013. I am sure he is a generous man with his consent, but the reality of the situation is that where the Assembly has been able to legislate, the Bill now requires his consent to do it. That is a roll-back of devolution; it is as simple as that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is getting confused. Under the existing settlement, the Act to which he just referred required ministerial consent. That consent was given, with no problem at all. Under the new settlement, because that Act has an impact on reserved matters or functions of a UK Minister of the Crown, it would still require consent. We should not see consents as some great problem. We need a way of regulating the interface between the UK Government and the Welsh Government.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With respect, the Secretary of State has to understand that simplicity is the most important thing. The Silk Commission said—this is what the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly was also referring to—that there must be scope for the situation where consent is not required in the 20 devolved areas. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State cannot see that. The roll-back of the devolution process is the danger of the Bill.

[Stephen Crabb]

Confused.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If we want to talk about confusion, let us move on to necessity, because we will have some fun on that with the Secretary of State.

Let us be clear what the test of necessity actually means. The Assembly has to be convinced that Acts are necessary before it can act—that is what the necessity test says. There are plenty of examples in the Bill; there is one on page 69, if Members want to look at it. Let me tell the Secretary of State what the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University said:

“The concept of necessity-testing in the draft Bill represents a failure of comparative legal method… The use of necessity-testing in the draft Bill jars with basic constitutional principle.”

Why does it say that? It says that because necessity-testing is a concept that has essentially been taken from Scottish law, but in Scottish law it would refer only to cases where the law has to be modified in a very narrow, consequential way in relation to reserved matters, and not in the very broad sense that is being attempted in the Bill. That is the central problem.

This morning, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West kept asking, “What do you replace necessity with?” It is true that we could use a different word. We could use “reasonable” or “sufficient” if we wanted to, but none of that would deal with the basic problem, which is that that would ultimately have to be a subject of interpretation by the judiciary. The real problem is that the Secretary of State has to revisit the framework in which the necessity test arises; it has to be about the overall framework.

I practised in the courts in England and Wales for many years, and one problem is that the necessity test could end up before the criminal courts and the civil courts on a daily basis. That is what the Law Society of England and Wales has said about the extraordinary worry that there is about the Wales Bill. We could have the law being challenged on an almost daily basis, which certainly cannot be what the Secretary of State intends.

Further to those confusions, David Melding AM—my new favourite Conservative—said on 13 January:

“Judicial review could become, if not the norm, then far from the exception. Welsh legislation would be drafted in an atmosphere of profound uncertainty, which itself would curtail its scope and ambition. Taken to extremes, the very exercise of the legislative function could be compromised.”

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State also referred to that pretty stinging criticism. With all this stuff floating around, I certainly would not mind being a fly on the wall at the next meeting between the Conservative AMs and MPs.

The Secretary of State now has an opportunity to take another look at the Bill. He has previously said, and I take him at his word, that he is in listening mode. I hope that he is still in listening mode and that he is willing go back and look at the Bill. The organic growth of devolution went from the Government of Wales Act 1998 to the 2006 Act and the referendum, and we are moving another step forward on the journey. We certainly do not want—to change the metaphor—the devolution car to go into reverse. Since the first Welsh Secretary of State took office in 1964, the Secretary of State is the only one under whose tenure the powers of Welsh Members of Parliament have been taken away. Not one of the previous Secretaries of State—

[Stephen Crabb]

Nonsense.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Well, find me an example under a previous Secretary of State of English votes for English laws. You will not find one. Secretary of State, do not make a disastrous devolution Bill your second contribution to history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams]

I know his question, but I am not going to give him an answer because he tried it on the hon. Member for Llanelli. A debate is going on about the question of a distinct—not separate—jurisdiction. The genie is out of the bottle and if the Secretary of State wants a resolution—I know he is sincere about that—that issue must be addressed and I think it should be addressed in the Bill.

Sir Paul Silk said that politicians should be open to a review between the Assembly Government and the Westminster Government and a time period of 10 years was referred to, which is probably too long, given the debate that we have had. That issue will not go away. Hon. Members still here in a few years’ time—I hope to be—will have to revisit the Welsh jurisdiction issue unless it is dealt with soon.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. I urge a bit of caution in the discussion about distinct and separate jurisdiction, because I fear that history is slightly repeating itself. Two or three years ago in Welsh Grand Committee and on the Floor of the House people were saying, “We need the reserved powers model,” but simply to say that we will move to a distinct jurisdiction would not tackle the problems of the complexities of consenting that we have been talking about. It does not tackle the complexities around the spillover effects of the Welsh Government making law that affects reserved matters or has an impact in England. All those really difficult and contentious issues still need to be addressed, whether we are maintaining the joint jurisdiction or somehow moving to a distinct or separate jurisdiction.

[Mr Mark Williams]

Of course, the Secretary of State is right. That is the difference between the draft Bill and the final Bill that he will present before us in due course. He partially answers my point. He is right that three or four years ago people were talking about a reserved system. That is what is being proposed now. My point is that unless the issue of a distinct jurisdiction is dealt with, he or his successors will have to deal with it in a few years’ time.

I will end in the same way as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, my neighbour in west Wales, ended her speech. I want to vote for the Bill. I want the march to devolution—in my party’s case, to home rule—to continue. I want to vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but I can only do so if certain changes are made. The Secretary of State is making very encouraging noises about listening to people. He needs to address the concerns that we and others in Wales right across the board in civil society, as well as our colleagues in the National Assembly, have raised. He needs to make those changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. It an issue of clarity, common sense and making progress. The message that the Secretary of State for Wales has received from both sides of the Committee, and from our very own favourite AM, Mr David Melding, will be heard loud and clear. The critical point is to ensure that the Bill is not made in London, but is developed in collaboration with Wales. I welcome all the feedback that has been given today.

The lack of clarity also means that we run the risk of the Bill being questioned from the point of view of politicising the approach. For example, clauses 13 to 16 state that Westminster will retain control of ports with a turnover of £14.3 million. Lo and behold, that means that Milford Haven would remain under UK Government control. To my knowledge, the Secretary of the State has not made it entirely clear—it is not clear from the Bill —why it is necessary for Milford Haven to remain under Westminster’s jurisdiction. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would want to make that clear in the Bill and to dismiss any damaging speculation that it might be because the Government are preparing to privatise the port.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful and interesting speech. May I allay his fears on this point? One of the voices that has not had enough air time in this whole constitutional debate is that of the business community. However, on the issue of ports, and especially a large, strategic energy port such as Milford Haven, the voice of the business community came through loud and clear. This is entirely to do with UK strategic issues, despite any scaremongering that we might hear from the hon. Gentleman or his political colleagues regarding potential privatisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I apologise that I am suffering from terrible flu at the moment, so I hope that you can hear me okay.

I was recently a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, of course, and I think I am unique among Welsh Conservatives here in having been a Member of the National Assembly for Wales and a Westminster MP. I have seen the Welsh Government working at first hand and I have several concerns about the way they operate.

My first concern is that while I get the fact that we need to have tax devolution, and that the Government need to show competence and to be answerable for the money that they raise and how they spend it, the Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay have recently overseen an appalling piece of financial mismanagement—the regeneration investment fund for Wales. Tens of millions of pounds are being wasted, so it is worrying to think that we will suddenly hand down to Wales tax-raising powers. There is a certain arrogance about the Welsh Government’s response to the loss of those millions of pounds, so I am really concerned that, should we give them tax devolution and these tax-raising powers, they will follow the same sort of path. I cannot say how much I feel for the people of Wales if they are to suffer such mismanagement.

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I understand his long-held, strong views about our being careful about devolving taxes to Cardiff Bay. He highlights the scandal of that sale of land and the loss to the taxpayer, but until and unless the Welsh Government become a more responsible body by being accountable for the money that they raise as well as how they spend it—as long as they carry on as a big spending Department—we will get more of these scandals and more of that careless use of public money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones]

I am not sure where the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire was going with that. Clearly, we want a system that works and that provides a framework for moving the Assembly and devolution forward.

The Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on the draft Bill says:

“The necessity tests have elicited considerable reaction amongst those who have provided us with evidence and it is fair to say that these tests have received very little support.”

We should accept the principle that the Assembly should be able to legislate freely in the areas devolved to it without having to prove that its actions are necessary.

[Stephen Crabb]

There is nothing in the draft Bill that makes the Welsh Assembly consider whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary. This is about a spillover effect in reserved areas impacting on England and the underlying principles of civil and criminal law. There is freedom to act as long as it can be satisfied that the impact is no greater than necessary. There is nothing about satisfying an overall test of whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I apologise to you and the Committee for my slightly late arrival; I was detained by the Prime Minister’s statement.

I thank the Secretary of State for allowing us this pre-legislative stage for discussion. The Bill has sparked some vigorous debates about what Wales’s constitutional position should look like, not just among politicians but in civil society, although possibly not for the people on the streets of Aberavon. I hope that we will have sufficient time to think about and discuss the draft Bill and the responses to it, not least by bodies such as the Wales Governance Centre. I would like to thank the centre for its excellent and useful report that was launched in Parliament last night. I also look forward to the report by the Welsh Affairs Committee. The discussions will take place not only today and tomorrow, but through the next weeks and months, so that parliamentarians and, more importantly, the people of Wales can come to a considered view, not subject to the time constraints of a party or parties facing difficult Assembly elections.

While I am glad that legal issues around workability and drafting are under the spotlight before the Bill is published in full, we have not had adequate time to scrutinise in debate the policy areas in the list of reservations. Members have mentioned the lack of a guiding principle in the list, and that absence is fairly clear. As far as I know, little effort has been made to justify the reservations as a group and the principle behind them. However, they do need to be justified.

I will give a small and obscure example. Members will recall that this morning I asked the Secretary of State for the justification for retaining alcohol and entertainment licences, and I referred to schedule 1 referring to schedule 7A, and so on. I would like to tell the Committee a very brief story about the debates around the Licensing Act. At that time, a number of local licensees told me that they would like to apply for their licences in Welsh. I asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the time whether application forms could be made available in Welsh. The Secretary of State, now safely ensconced in the upper echelons of the BBC—I think that is today’s equivalent of running away to sea—was embarrassed because he had no answer. He countered by offering me a meeting. At the meeting, I suggested the names of a number of translation companies, which could turn the forms around in a day. Inevitably, he said it was not as simple as that. It was not a mere matter of translation. Eventually, Welsh forms turned up, some 18 months later, long after the aforementioned licensees had despaired, and had applied for and been granted the licences in English.

I doubt that the Cardiff Government would be remiss in the first place, but if they were, they would get their skates on. Yet now, apparently, alcohol and entertainment licences must be retained here, although licensing is a local authority function and local authorities work through the Welsh, not the UK, Government, in general. I do not why it is in the list unless it is because DCMS insists that it is.

When I asked the Secretary of State all those years ago why he had not ensured that Welsh forms were available, he eventually confessed that a mere 13 years after the advent of the Welsh Language Act 1993, after 13 years of apparently serving the people of Wales well, his Department—the Department for culture, for heaven’s sake—still had no Welsh language plan. Is this the same Department that now insists that it retain the power over Welsh entertainment and alcohol licences, let alone S4C—I, of course, welcomed the announcement made today—or is the decision for our own Secretary of State?

There are many other points to be made. I will not repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd about the true consensus that we achieved with Silk versus the Bill that is now before us, which has been called the lowest common denominator. However, I think it is clear that the erosion of the work of the Silk Commission has hampered the Secretary of State in his stated aim of achieving a long-term settlement.

Reference has been made to policing, and I note the concerns of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West. Policing was also referred to by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who is no longer in his place. Policing is devolved in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, but it is reserved in Wales—I am not quite sure why. What makes it necessary to reserve policing in Wales when it is not necessary to do so elsewhere in the UK?

The hon. Member for Gower referred to the complexities of cross-border considerations. I just want to say that it would be for the Secretary of State to argue the case for reserving, and it is not for me to argue why that should not be. I would point out that the police forces themselves support the devolution of policing. The former chief constable of Gwent Police highlighted in her evidence to the Silk Commission the fact that the Home Office develops initiatives based on the English Partnerships landscape without considering the different landscapes in Wales. That intra-Wales issue could be addressed by the devolution of policing.

The crime priorities in Wales are different. England has a knife crime problem that has not affected Wales in the same way, but that dictates the priorities of the Welsh police forces regardless. Those police forces are unique within the UK because they are non-devolved bodies operating within a largely devolved public service landscape. In the usual way, it is a case of follow the money, and where does the money for the police come from? It tends to come, as we all know, from the Assembly itself.

The police are required to follow the agendas of two Governments—currently of a different political hue. To reserve policing prevents us from achieving greater clarity and efficiency by uniting devolved responsibilities such as community services, drugs prevention and safety partnerships with those currently held by UK Government. In my view, that is linked to the question of legal jurisdiction. I will not rehearse the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd this morning, but the unified jurisdiction has been a block on progress.

I should like to consider briefly the reservations that we have about energy. Plaid Cymru compromised during the Silk Commission. We believe that full responsibility should be transferred to the Welsh Government, just as it is in Scotland, but in the interests of compromise, we agreed to support an arbitrary limit of 350 MW. We compromised on that in return for compromises elsewhere, but given that the report has been cherry-picked our compromise is now meaningless. We gave in, but we do not seem to be getting anything back. Under the current proposal, the Swansea bay tidal lagoon would fall within the remit of the National Assembly, but the proposed Cardiff and Colwyn bay lagoons would be a matter for this place.

[Stephen Crabb]

I find the point that the hon. Gentleman has made fascinating, because this is the first time that I have heard anyone who was involved with the Silk Commission describe a process of fudge and political compromise. I thought from previous contributions to the debate that the commission was characterised by high-minded principle, but the hon. Gentleman is saying that it was all a bunch of trade-offs to achieve consensus, which did not have the buy-in of Her Majesty’s Government or of the official Opposition, so there was no great Silk consensus based on principle.

[Hywel Williams]

The principles of the Silk Commission and its recommendations are quite clear—further devolution —however, as the Secretary of State knows better than I, in the process of discussion people take positions on the basis of what is before them. We decided to compromise on our long-held belief that there should be no limits. There is an interesting case that illustrates why this might be so. In the village near the town where I live, near Caernarfon, there is a hydro-electric scheme. It was initially going to generate 49 MW, because at 50 MW it would have to come to the attention of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in Whitehall. When the limit was mooted to be 350 MW, the proposed capacity was immediately raised. What we have here is an example of legislation preventing economic development that we would all want to see—the production of green electricity —because of an arbitrary limit. That is one of the reasons why we did not want such an arbitrary limit, but it is now 350 MW, which we have agreed to.

I will not refer in any detail to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, excellent as it was. It was a model for first speeches in a Welsh Grand Committee and I am sure that it will repay close reading. She said that there was little shift in mentality. There has been a change, but not a change in the world view. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Monmouth and for Wrexham, who discussed English votes for English laws. That is a problem. I raised a point of order in the Chamber when we were debating the student issue, asking how I would represent the thousands of English students who live in Bangor, many of whom voted for me, and who will be affected by that decision. They would be unrepresented, especially if the vote went a different way. That issue needs to be addressed.

I am suspicious about the suggestion from the hon. Member for Wrexham that we have a joint committee of Assembly Members and Members of Parliament, along with local councils in both Wales and in England. That would be a camel by design, but perhaps we could meet in Ludlow, as the Council of Wales and the Marches used to do. There are some excellent restaurants there, I am told, but even that could not attract me to the proposal.

The right hon. Member for Clwyd West said, quite rightly, that the reserved powers model is not a panacea and needs to be discussed. I certainly agree about that. He did not believe, as I have said, that the Welsh Government should handle policing, and there is a debate to be had about that. The hon. Member for Torfaen made an interesting reference to horses—not camels—and he made a good point that there would be legal challenges daily, which is something that animates everyone on the Committee. We want a proper solution that would not be subject to the attention of the courts.

The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd suggested that decisions made during the St David’s day process were directed by what was in the press on that day. As a long-term politician, God forbid that we take any notice of the press at all. The hon. Member for Ceredigion said that clarity was at the heart of democracy, and I agree with him entirely, as I do on many matters. He also addressed the issue of a distinct jurisdiction. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire decried the negative tone of the discussion. In last night’s meeting to launch the report by the Welsh Governance Centre direct reference was made to the negative tone of the coverage of that report. Given that the press are not here, I might say that there was a direct reference to the Western Mail’s completely negative coverage.

Draft Wales Bill

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for my first Welsh Grand Committee, Mr Hanson.

Our starting point has to be what the Secretary of State for Wales says in the foreword to the draft Wales Bill:

“We are determined to ensure the people of Wales have a clear and lasting devolution settlement… For too long Welsh politics has been dominated by constitutional debates about what is and is not devolved.”

I fear that, as it is, the draft Wales Bill is likely to create more and more debate, much of which will end up before the UK Supreme Court unless stringent and significant changes are made to the Bill. I shall give a few examples, starting with the issue of ministerial consent.

The provisions on ministerial consent on page 73 of the draft Bill mean that if the Assembly wants to legislate in a way that affects the power of a UK Government Minister, it must first ask for consent. In and of itself, that creates great uncertainty, because the powers of UK Government Ministers are set out in hundreds of statutes. Let me give one example of the kind of absurd consequences that could arise and why the provisions are an example of devolution being rolled back, not forward: the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014. Reservation 184 in the draft Bill is about arbitration. Section 7 of the 2014 Act contains a dispute resolution procedure to resolve disagreements between horse owners and local authorities. Under the draft Bill, that Act would have to be subject to ministerial consent. There we have it: horses in Wales having to be subject to a UK Government Minister in London. I do not know the Secretary of State’s view on horses, but no doubt we will have to find out if the draft Bill becomes a permanent fixture.

The Silk Commission said that one way to resolve uncertainties would be to transfer the powers in the devolved areas. I urge the Secretary of State to look at ministerial consents to see whether there can be such a simplification. Otherwise, we will simply be piling up work for the UK Supreme Court.

In an intervention on the Secretary of State this morning, I raised the issue of reserved powers. Yes, of course, a reserved powers model can work extremely well. I think the right hon. Member for Clwyd West pointed out that my predecessor as MP for Torfaen, who was twice Secretary of State for Wales, had spoken about the reserved powers model. There is nothing wrong with the model. The problem is that, first, it has to be pretty clear and, secondly, the number of powers that are and are not reserved has to be in line with the expectations of the Welsh people.

Conservative Assembly Member David Melding said of the reserved powers in the draft Bill:

“They are numerous. Quite literally, they cannot be counted, although most who have attempted enumeration put the figure somewhere above 250. This is ominous.”

The Secretary of State really should take that into account as he looks at how he can redraft the Bill. Dame Rosemary Butler put it this way:

“there is significant roll-back in the reservations themselves. A large number of matters which are not exceptions from the Assembly’s current competence have been made into reserved matters in the draft Bill.”

That is devolution being rolled back.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point and refers to comments by the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly. Does he agree with the Presiding Officer’s presumption that all of those silent subjects were intended to be devolved, and therefore the Supreme Court judgment on the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill effectively makes all of those subjects devolved now if they can be linked in some way to a devolved purpose? Alternatively, does he agree with me that we should go back and understand Parliament’s intentions in making the existing devolution settlement and then extend the devolution boundary by a political process, rather than rely on the courts?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With the greatest of respect to the Secretary of State, I do not think he has quite picked up the point I am making, which is this: the Assembly has already legislated on a number of matters that, under this Bill, it will have to seek his consent to legislate on. Another example of where his consent would have been required is the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013. I am sure he is a generous man with his consent, but the reality of the situation is that where the Assembly has been able to legislate, the Bill now requires his consent to do it. That is a roll-back of devolution; it is as simple as that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is getting confused. Under the existing settlement, the Act to which he just referred required ministerial consent. That consent was given, with no problem at all. Under the new settlement, because that Act has an impact on reserved matters or functions of a UK Minister of the Crown, it would still require consent. We should not see consents as some great problem. We need a way of regulating the interface between the UK Government and the Welsh Government.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With respect, the Secretary of State has to understand that simplicity is the most important thing. The Silk Commission said—this is what the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly was also referring to—that there must be scope for the situation where consent is not required in the 20 devolved areas. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State cannot see that. The roll-back of the devolution process is the danger of the Bill.

[Stephen Crabb]

Confused.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If we want to talk about confusion, let us move on to necessity, because we will have some fun on that with the Secretary of State.

Let us be clear what the test of necessity actually means. The Assembly has to be convinced that Acts are necessary before it can act—that is what the necessity test says. There are plenty of examples in the Bill; there is one on page 69, if Members want to look at it. Let me tell the Secretary of State what the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University said:

“The concept of necessity-testing in the draft Bill represents a failure of comparative legal method… The use of necessity-testing in the draft Bill jars with basic constitutional principle.”

Why does it say that? It says that because necessity-testing is a concept that has essentially been taken from Scottish law, but in Scottish law it would refer only to cases where the law has to be modified in a very narrow, consequential way in relation to reserved matters, and not in the very broad sense that it is being attempted to include in the Bill. That is the central problem.

This morning, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West kept asking, “What do you replace necessity with?” It is true that we could use a different word. We could use “reasonable” or “sufficient” if we wanted to, but none of that would deal with the basic problem, which is that that would ultimately have to be a subject of interpretation by the judiciary. The real problem is that the Secretary of State has to revisit the framework in which the necessity test arises; it has to be about the overall framework.

I practised in the courts in England and Wales for many years, and one problem is that the necessity test could end up before the criminal courts and the civil courts on a daily basis. That is what the Law Society of England and Wales has said about the extraordinary worry that there is about the Wales Bill. We could have the law being challenged on an almost daily basis, which certainly cannot be what the Secretary of State intends.

Further to those confusions, David Melding AM—my new favourite Conservative—said on 13 January:

“Judicial review could become, if not the norm, then far from the exception. Welsh legislation would be drafted in an atmosphere of profound uncertainty, which itself would curtail its scope and ambition. Taken to extremes, the very exercise of the legislative function could be compromised.”

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State also referred to that pretty stinging criticism. With all this stuff floating around, I certainly would not mind being a fly on the wall at the next meeting between the Conservative AMs and MPs.

The Secretary of State now has an opportunity to take another look at the Bill. He has previously said, and I take him at his word, that he is in listening mode. I hope that he is still in listening mode and that he is willing go back and look at the Bill. The organic growth of devolution went from the Government of Wales Act 1998 to the 2006 Act and the referendum, and we are moving another step forward on the journey. We certainly do not want—to change the metaphor—the devolution car to go into reverse. Since the first Welsh Secretary of State took office in 1964, he is the only one under whose tenure the powers of Welsh Members of Parliament have been taken away. Not one of the previous Secretaries of State—

[Stephen Crabb]

Nonsense.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Well, find me an example under a previous Secretary of State of English votes for English laws. You will not find one. Secretary of State, do not make a disastrous devolution Bill your second contribution to history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams]

I know his question, but I am not going to give him an answer because he tried it on the hon. Member for Llanelli. A debate is going on about the question of a distinct—not separate—jurisdiction. The genie is out of the bottle and if the Secretary of State wants a resolution—I know he is sincere about that—that issue must be addressed and I think it should be addressed in the Bill.

Sir Paul Silk said that politicians should be open to a review between the Assembly Government and the Westminster Government and a time period of 10 years was referred to, which is probably too long, given the debate that we have had. That issue will not go away. Hon. Members still here in a few years’ time—I hope to be—will have to revisit the Welsh jurisdiction issue unless it is dealt with soon.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. I urge a bit of caution in the discussion about distinct and separate jurisdiction, because I fear that history is slightly repeating itself. Two or three years ago in Welsh Grand Committee and on the Floor of the House people were saying, “We need the reserved powers model,” but simply to say that we will move to a distinct jurisdiction would not tackle the problems of the complexities of consenting that we have been talking about. It does not tackle the complexities around the spillover effects of the Welsh Government making law that affects reserved matters or has an impact in England. All those really difficult and contentious issues still need to be addressed, whether we are maintaining the joint jurisdiction or somehow moving to a distinct or separate jurisdiction.

[Mr Mark Williams]

Of course, the Secretary of State is right. That is the difference between the draft Bill and the final Bill that he will present before us in due course. He partially answers my point. He is right that three or four years ago people were talking about a reserved system. That is what is being proposed now. My point is that unless the issue of a distinct jurisdiction is dealt with, he or his successors will have to deal with it in a few years’ time.

I will end in the same way as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, my neighbour in west Wales, ended her speech. I want to vote for the Bill. I want the march to devolution—in my party’s case, to home rule—to continue. I want to vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but I can only do so if certain changes are made. The Secretary of State is making very encouraging noises about listening to people. He needs to address the concerns that we and others in Wales right across the board in civil society, as well as our colleagues in the National Assembly, have raised. He needs to make those changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. It an issue of clarity, common sense and making progress. The message that the Secretary of State for Wales has received from both sides of the Committee, and from our very own favourite AM, Mr David Melding, will be heard loud and clear. The critical point is to ensure that the Bill is not made in London, but is developed in collaboration with Wales. I welcome all the feedback that has been given today.

The lack of clarity also means that we run the risk of the Bill being questioned from the point of view of politicising the approach. For example, clauses 13 to 16 state that Westminster will retain control of ports with a turnover of £14.3 million. Lo and behold, that means that Milford Haven would remain under UK Government control. To my knowledge, the Secretary of the State has not made it entirely clear—it is not clear from the Bill —why it is necessary for Milford Haven to remain under Westminster’s jurisdiction. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would want to make that clear in the Bill and to dismiss any damaging speculation that it might be because the Government are preparing to privatise the port.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful and interesting speech. May I allay his fears on this point? One of the voices that has not had enough air time in this whole constitutional debate is that of the business community. However, on the issue of ports, and especially a large, strategic energy port such as Milford Haven, the voice of the business community came through loud and clear. This is entirely to do with UK strategic issues, despite any scaremongering that we might hear from the hon. Gentleman or his political colleagues regarding potential privatisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I apologise that I am suffering from terrible flu at the moment, so I hope that you can hear me okay.

I was recently a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, of course, and I think I am unique among Welsh Conservatives here in having been a Member of the National Assembly for Wales and a Westminster MP. I have seen the Welsh Government working at first hand and I have several concerns about the way they operate.

My first concern is that while I get the fact that we need to have tax devolution, and that the Government need to show competence and to be answerable for the money that they raise and how they spend it, the Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay have recently overseen an appalling piece of financial mismanagement—the regeneration investment fund for Wales. Tens of millions of pounds are being wasted, so it is worrying to think that we will suddenly hand down to Wales tax-raising powers. There is a certain arrogance about the Welsh Government’s response to the loss of those millions of pounds, so I am really concerned that, should we give them tax devolution and these tax-raising powers, they will follow the same sort of path. I cannot say how much I feel for the people of Wales if they are to suffer such mismanagement.

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I understand his long-held, strong views about our being careful about devolving taxes to Cardiff Bay. He highlights the scandal of that sale of land and the loss to the taxpayer, but until and unless the Welsh Government become a more responsible body by being accountable for the money that they raise as well as how they spend it—as long as they carry on as a big spending Department—we will get more of these scandals and more of that careless use of public money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones]

I am not sure where the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire was going with that. Clearly, we want a system that works and that provides a framework for moving the Assembly and devolution forward.

The Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on the draft Bill says:

“The necessity tests have elicited considerable reaction amongst those who have provided us with evidence and it is fair to say that these tests have received very little support.”

We should accept the principle that the Assembly should be able to legislate freely in the areas devolved to it without having to prove that its actions are necessary.

[Stephen Crabb]

There is nothing in the draft Bill that makes the Welsh Assembly consider whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary. This is about a spill-over effect in reserved areas impacting on England and the underlying principles of civil and criminal law. There is freedom to act as long as it can be satisfied that the impact is no greater than necessary. There is nothing about satisfying an overall test of whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I apologise to you and the Committee for my slightly late arrival; I was detained by the Prime Minister’s statement.

I thank the Secretary of State for allowing us this pre-legislative stage for discussion. The Bill has sparked some vigorous debates about what Wales’s constitutional position should look like, not just among politicians but in civil society, although possibly not for the people on the streets of Aberavon. I hope that we will have sufficient time to think about and discuss the draft and the responses to it, not least by bodies such as the Wales Governance Centre. I would like to thank the centre for its excellent and useful report that was launched in Parliament last night. I also look forward to the report by the Welsh Affairs Committee. The discussions will take place not only today and tomorrow, but through the next weeks and months, so that parliamentarians and, more importantly, the people of Wales can come to a considered view, not subject to the time constraints of a party or parties facing difficult Assembly elections.

While I am glad that legal issues around workability and drafting are under the spotlight before the Bill is published in full, we have not had adequate time to scrutinise in debate the policy areas in the list of reservations. Members have mentioned the lack of a guiding principle in the list, and that absence is fairly clear. As far as I know, little effort has been made to justify the reservations as a group and the principle behind them. However, they do need to be justified.

I will give a small and obscure example. Members will recall that this morning I asked the Secretary of State for the justification for retaining alcohol and entertainment licences, and I referred to schedule 1 referring to schedule 7A, and so on. I would like to tell the Committee a very brief story about the debates around the Licensing Act. At that time, a number of local licensees told me that they would like to apply for their licences in Welsh. I asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the time whether application forms could be made available in Welsh. The Secretary of State, now safely ensconced in the upper echelons of the BBC—I think that is today’s equivalent of running away to sea—was embarrassed because he had no answer. He countered by offering me a meeting. At the meeting, I suggested the names of a number of translation companies, which could turn the forms around in a day. Inevitably, he said it was not as simple as that. It was not a mere matter of translation. Eventually, Welsh forms turned up, some 18 months later, long after the aforementioned licensees had despaired, and had applied for and been granted the licences in English.

I doubt that the Cardiff Government would be remiss in the first place, but if they were, they would get their skates on. Yet now, apparently, alcohol and entertainment licences must be retained here, although licensing is a local authority function and local authorities work through the Welsh, not the UK, Government, in general. I do not why it is in the list unless it is because DCMS insists that it is.

When I asked the Secretary of State all those years ago why he had not ensured that Welsh forms were available, he eventually confessed that a mere 13 years after the advent of the Welsh Language Act 1993, after 13 years of apparently serving the people of Wales well, his Department—the Department for culture, for heaven’s sake—still had no Welsh language plan. Is this the same Department that now insists that it retain the power over Welsh entertainment and alcohol licences, let alone S4C—I, of course, welcomed the announcement made today—or is the decision for our own Secretary of State?

There are many other points to be made. I will not repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd about the true consensus that we achieved with Silk versus the Bill that is now before us, which has been called the lowest common denominator. However, I think it is clear that the erosion of the work of the Silk Commission has hampered the Secretary of State in his stated aim of achieving a long-term settlement.

Reference has been made to policing, and I note the concerns of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West. Policing was also referred to by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who is no longer in his place. Policing is devolved in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, but it is reserved in Wales—I am not quite sure why. What makes it necessary to reserve policing in Wales when it is not necessary to do so elsewhere in the UK?

The hon. Member for Gower referred to the complexities of cross-border considerations. I just want to say that it would be for the Secretary of State to argue the case for reserving, and it is not for me to argue why that should not be. I would point out that the police forces themselves support the devolution of policing. The former chief constable of Gwent Police highlighted in her evidence to the Silk Commission the fact that the Home Office develops initiatives based on the English Partnerships landscape without considering the different landscapes in Wales. That intra-Wales issue could be addressed by the devolution of policing.

The crime priorities in Wales are different. England has a knife crime problem that has not affected Wales in the same way, but that dictates the priorities of the Welsh police forces regardless. Those police forces are unique within the UK because they are non-devolved bodies operating within a largely devolved public service landscape. In the usual way, it is a case of follow the money, and where does the money for the police come from? It tends to come, as we all know, from the Assembly itself.

The police are required to follow the agendas of two Governments—currently of a different political hue. To reserve policing prevents us from achieving greater clarity and efficiency by uniting devolved responsibilities such as community services, drugs prevention and safety partnerships with those currently held by UK Government. In my view, that is linked to the question of legal jurisdiction. I will not rehearse the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd this morning, but the unified jurisdiction has been a block on progress.

I should like to consider briefly the reservations that we have about energy. Plaid Cymru compromised during the Silk Commission. We believe that full responsibility should be transferred to the Welsh Government, just as it is in Scotland, but in the interests of compromise, we agreed to support an arbitrary limit of 350 MW. We compromised on that in return for compromises elsewhere, but given that the report has been cherry-picked our compromise is now meaningless. We gave in, but we do not seem to be getting back. Under the current proposal, the Swansea bay tidal lagoon would fall within the remit of the National Assembly, but the proposed Cardiff and Colwyn bay lagoons would be a matter for this place.

[Stephen Crabb]

I find the point that the hon. Gentleman has made fascinating, because this is the first time that I have heard anyone who was involved with the Silk Commission describe a process of fudge and political compromise. I thought from previous contributions to the debate that the commission was characterised by high-minded principle, but the hon. Gentleman is saying that it was all a bunch of trade-offs to achieve consensus, which did not have the buy-in of Her Majesty’s Government or of the official Opposition, so there was no great Silk consensus based on principle.

[Hywel Williams]

The principles of the Silk Commission and its recommendations are quite clear—further devolution —however, as the Secretary of State knows better than I, in the process of discussion people take positions on the basis of what is before them. We decided to compromise on our long-held belief that there should be no limits. There is an interesting case that illustrates why this might be so. In the village near the town where I live, near Caernarfon, there is a hydro-electric scheme. It was initially going to generate 49 MW, because at 50 MW it would have to come to the attention of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in Whitehall. When the limit was mooted to be 350 MW, the proposed capacity was immediately raised. What we have here is an example of legislation preventing economic development that we would all want to see—the production of green electricity —because of an arbitrary limit. That is one of the reasons why we did not want such an arbitrary limit, but it is now 350 MW, which we have agreed to.

I will not refer in any detail to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, excellent as it was. It was a model for first speeches in a Welsh Grand Committee and I am sure that it will repay close reading. She said that there was little shift in mentality. There has been a change, but not a change in the world view. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Monmouth and for Wrexham, who discussed English votes for English laws. That is a problem. I raised a point of order in the Chamber when we were debating the student issue, asking how I would represent the thousands of English students who live in Bangor, many of whom voted for me, and who will be affected by that decision. They would be unrepresented, especially if the vote went a different way. That issue needs to be addressed.

I am suspicious about the suggestion from the hon. Member for Wrexham that we have a joint committee of Assembly Members and Members of Parliament, along with local councils in both Wales and in England. That would be a camel by design, but perhaps we could meet in Ludlow, as the Council of Wales and the Marches used to do. There are some excellent restaurants there, I am told, but even that could not attract me to the proposal.

The right hon. Member for Clwyd West said, quite rightly, that the powers model is not a panacea and needs to be discussed. I certainly agree about that. He did not believe, as I have said, that the Welsh Government should handle policing, and there is a debate to be had about that. The hon. Member for Torfaen made an interesting reference to horses—not camels—and he made a good point that there would be legal challenges daily, which is something that animates everyone on the Committee. We want a proper solution that would not be subject to the attention of the courts.

The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd suggested that decisions made during the St David’s day process were directed by what was in the press on that day. As a long-term politician, God forbid that we take any notice of the press at all. The hon. Member for Ceredigion said that clarity was at the heart of democracy, and I agree with him entirely, as I do on many matters. He also addressed the issue of a distinct jurisdiction. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire decried the negative tone of the discussion. In last night’s meeting to launch the report by the Welsh Governance Centre direct reference was made to the negative tone of the coverage of that report. Given that the press are not here, I might say that there was a direct reference to the Western Mail’s completely negative coverage.