UK Acorn Finance (Mortgages)

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Elfyn Llwyd

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Turner, to see you in the Chair and to serve under your able chairmanship.

I preface my comments by saying that, as a member of the legal profession, I am not given to making serious allegations about professional people; in fact, over the past 23 years, I might have done that twice, so I am not a serial offender in that regard. However, what I shall detail today is, to my way of thinking, one of the worst scandals that I have come across in all those years.

I am concerned about the Williams family—a farming family from Cwm Pennant, Garndolbenmaen, in my constituency. The husband inherited the farm in 1996 and subsequently transferred it into his name and that of his wife, with whom he had been working on the farm since 1980. In late 2009, they were introduced to Desmond Phillips of UK Acorn Finance Ltd by a Mr Peter Baskerville, a financial adviser. On 13 December 2010, a meeting was held at Mr Phillips’s office in Highbridge, Somerset; he then introduced them to a Mr Peter Williams, a solicitor who said that he would act for them. Their indebtedness at the time was approximately £650,000, of which £450,000 was owing to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation plc at a favourable interest rate. After my constituents had made a complete financial disclosure, Mr Peter Williams, the solicitor, advised that he could not act for them after all as Mr Phillips was his client. That was curious.

On 13 January 2011, Mr and Mrs Williams had another meeting with Mr Phillips, again in Somerset. He introduced them to a Mr Thomas Brennan of Davies and Partners, solicitors. Mr Brennan said he would act for them; he was a close friend of Mr Peter Williams. After that meeting at Highbridge, a Mr Mark Sanders of Carver Knowles, on the instruction of Mr Desmond Phillips, valued the farm in north Wales at £2.2 million. Mr and Mrs Williams paid for that valuation. Mr Phillips then made numerous promises to them to provide additional funding, and on the basis of his promises they agreed to consolidate their borrowings with a mortgage advance from UK Acorn Finance Ltd. Initially, that was to be a short-term bridge for a few months, with the assurance that he—Mr Phillips—would thereafter transfer it to a cheaper lender. There were continual procrastination and delays from Phillips, and the transfer to a cheaper lender never happened. Instead, Mr and Mrs Williams had no choice other than a succession of massively expensive short-term bridging loans from UK Acorn Finance Ltd with no exit route other than the repossession of the farm.

On 22 April 2011, shortly after the charges on the farm were put in place in favour of the company, Mr Phillips and his daughter, Karen Phillips, visited the farm. Mr Phillips again promised additional funding, which never materialised. As a result, the farm was financially crippled, but Mr and Mrs Williams were assured that the mortgage would soon be transferred to a cheaper lender at 4% annual interest. That never happened—instead, they received notification shortly afterwards of repossession proceedings by UK Acorn Finance Ltd.

Mr and Mrs Williams were forced into a succession of short-term bridging loans of between three and six months with UK Acorn Finance Ltd, with enormous arrangement fees and interest costs resulting in a vicious spiral of unnecessary debt over which they had no control. Mr Phillips’s company was raking in all the money. UK Acorn Finance Ltd was owed in excess of £1.2 million with an increase of approximately £550,000 in two years. UK Acorn Finance Ltd has since repossessed the farm.

UK Acorn Finance Ltd always produced legal documentation for signing at the last minute and Mr and Mrs Williams signed it without legal representation or advice. The documents were sometimes driven up from Somerset to be signed and taken back there, Mr and Mrs Williams being told that time constraints made personal visits necessary to achieve the company’s deadlines.

Mr Phillips’s valuer subsequently reduced the value of the farm to £1.8 million. Mr and Mrs Williams were forced by Mr Phillips of UK Acorn Finance Ltd and his associates into enormous, spiralling mortgage debt. Peter Williams and his associate, the solicitor, knew from the outset that that would happen before their now obvious acts of conflict of interest—and, I believe, of conspiracy to defraud.

The true interest and cost of Mr Phillips’s actions have not been calculated, but they are clearly enormous. The reduction in the farm’s value from £2.2 million to £1.8 million, according to the valuer appointed by Mr Phillips—presumably to weaken the value ratio against the spiralling mortgage debt to UK Acorn Finance Ltd—and the manner in which the mortgage and financial affairs have been handled by Mr Phillips, his associates and lawyers, have clearly been reckless, if not, as I believe, fraudulent. Obviously, Mr and Mrs Williams’s credit rating is now in ruins.

In February 2011, Mr Phillips appointed a Mr N.R.C. Burd as the Law of Property Act 1925 receiver—by the way, Mr Burd appears quite often in such cases as the favoured receiver. Mr Peter Williams, then of solicitors Ebery Williams, acted for Mr Phillips, Mr Burd the receiver, Peter Baskerville and UK Acorn Farm Management Services Ltd, behind which stands Paul Johnson. My constituents were told by Mr Phillips that, although they had received no documentation from him, Williams’s company and solicitors had received £48,000. That was without their authority or consent. There were a few small, irregular payments to builders working on the farmhouse, who quickly withdrew their services because they were not being properly paid; Mr Phillips had given an assurance that he would make payments from money he held on their behalf. Mr Phillips has not accounted for a single penny. The total is believed to be in the region of £148,000, and none of that has been accounted for. The matter was reported to the police.

A Vivienne Williams, whose partner is Mr Peter Williams, the solicitor, now of Michelmores solicitors, previously of Burges Salmon, of Ebery Williams, of Wilsons Law and of Veale Wasbrough, still acts for Mr Phillips’s company, UK Acorn Finance Ltd and has succeeded in repossessing the farm and taking away Mr and Mrs Williams’s livelihood, their stock and their home. Everything they had on earth has gone.

Mr Peter Williams, of Burges Salmon and the various other establishments, does not stay long with a firm. I understand why. His normal modus operandi is one or all of the following in any particular case. The title deeds are split between the residential house and the land. There are separate mortgages on the house and the land and the property is then transferred into a limited company and mortgaged in the company’s name. The mortgage on the residential property then becomes a commercial transaction and is unregulated. All legal protection rights, including those of minor children, are removed by the above.

The house and land are then repossessed separately, devaluing in favour of purchasers who—believe it or not—are connected to the lender. On the way in, they value the property high to justify the payment of huge sums, which are clearly not sustainable and could not be paid back by the borrowers; on the way out, they undervalue it drastically, so that the person connected to the company can benefit.

The “business plan” in this case was prepared by Paul Johnson, who in reality was there to serve the key players: areas of weakness were exposed, particularly regarding cash flow, for exploitation by Peter Williams, Burges Salmon, UK Group and so on. As I said, a succession of short bridging loans in favour of UK Group was effected at a massive cost—an interest rate of 22%, at this time! Furthermore, fees of 9% were rolled up every six months, plus there were huge fees to solicitors and various agents. There was continual procrastination from them when it came to finding cheaper loans.

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

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case on his constituents’ behalf. In Talley in my constituency, there is a case that mirrors the structure of deception perpetrated against his constituents; it involves a company, associated with UK Acorn Finance, called UK Farm Finance Ltd. Does he share my concern that the farming community in particular is targeted and susceptible, because it is cash poor but asset rich? When the bridging loans mount up, people find that the position they are in quickly gets beyond their control.

[Mr Llwyd]

That is precisely the point. The farming community has been through a rather tortuous time in any event, in terms of income streams over the past five to seven years, so my hon. Friend’s point is absolutely correct. Farmers are more prone, but they are also in a worse position: unlike someone who loses a house and moves on, they lose absolutely everything. As I said, when they have inherited the property, as in Mr and Mrs Williams’s case, it is even sadder and worse.

Wales Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Elfyn Llwyd

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

Is not new clause 1 a credibility test for the Labour party? It has put in place a roadblock on income tax powers, in that their devolution cannot happen until Barnett reform. If it does not support the new clause this evening, that will clearly show that its stipulation is a roadblock to further devolution.

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and not only Plaid Cymru is saying that. In a recent article, Professor Richard Wyn Jones of the Wales governance centre at Cardiff university said that because of the difference of view between Labour colleagues in the National Assembly and those at Westminster, and between Scottish Labour and Scottish Labour Members at Westminster,

“Scottish Labour seem to have no compunction about throwing Wales, one of the poorest parts of the Union, under the bus to shore up their own position… For Wales it is, sadly, a very different story. Yet despite this, the Barnett formula—used to calculate funding for the Scottish and Welsh Governments—operates in a way that ensures per capita levels of public spending is far higher for Scotland than for Wales.”

He develops that theme, referring to the Holtham commission, and continues:

“But what of Welsh Labour? It is surely inconceivable that the Shadow Secretary of State…will have been unaware of the contents of Powers for a Purpose, and its pledge to retain Barnett while rejecting a needs-based replacement. Yet, thus far at least, he has remained resolutely silent in the face of this assault on the long-term interests of Wales.”

And so it goes on: it is a pretty harrowing read, but it underlines the fact that unaligned expert commentators believe that denial of the need to get on with reforming Barnett as soon as possible is undermining the democratic process in Wales and its future.

In our party, at least, we are quite clear. We believe that Wales should be fairly funded on the basis of need, and that the Barnett formula should be recalculated to ensure that Wales does not lose out, potentially on billions of pounds, over the coming decade. We have always maintained that position. However, the thrust of what the Bill offers is, on the whole, a good thing, with greater financial and fiscal powers, despite our disagreement about some of the restrictions and conditions that the Westminster Government have placed on the powers. We are disappointed that they have failed yet again to take the opportunity to address the serious injustice of the lack of fair funding, but the Bill is a means of getting on with the important job of improving the Welsh economy—boosting it and, I hope, creating many jobs in the process through careful investment in infrastructure—because we know that a lot needs to be done.

We know that the Conservative and Lib Dem Government will not commit to reform of the Barnett formula. They have always said that it works, despite the fact that many of their senior figures in Wales have acknowledged that it does not work, but needs reform. This Government can never be trusted to put Wales’s interests first.

Wales Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Elfyn Llwyd

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

As long the people of Scotland have those aspirations and vote for an SNP Government, I imagine that they would want to ask the question on subsequent occasions, but that is a debate for another time. Considering the way in which the opinion polls are moving, it seems that the question might be settled this time.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I remind the House that the Prime Minister said a few months ago to the people of Scotland that, whatever happens, devo-max is on offer to them. My hon. Friend is right to say that that means that the constitutional set-up of the UK will have to change, come what may.

[Jonathan Edwards]

As ever, I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his valid and expert intervention. Whatever happens in Scotland, it will completely change the political landscape and supersede Silk and even perhaps what we are discussing today.

With the Scottish question in mind, I believe that the UK Government have missed an opportunity to bring forward a settlement that would have helped them to develop a narrative in Scotland in which the Westminster elite recognised the national aspirations of the people of the nations of the state, and were happy to reform the relations between the nations of these isles to preserve the future of the state. One obvious measure would have been to devolve income tax powers to Wales in the Bill without the Scottish lockstep model. We will debate that issue in greater detail, but suffice it to say at this point that the unambitious nature of the Bill leaves the people of Scotland in little doubt that the referendum is a straight choice between more powers with yes and the status quo with no.

Amendments 30 and 31 would ensure that the poll for an ordinary general election to the National Assembly could not be held within six months of a general election for the UK Parliament. I am reassured by the discussion I had with the Minister before the debate. That, and the comments by the former constitutional Minister, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, is why I am probing rather than pressing the amendments to a vote. When he took the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill through the House, he did a lot of work to ensure that there would be no coterminosity between the Assembly and the general election. That would have presented a great danger to our democracy in Wales.

Fairness and Inequality

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Elfyn Llwyd

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the United Kingdom is one of the most unequal states in the OECD, ranked 28 out of 34 countries for income inequality and the fourth most unequal country in the developed world according to some analyses; further notes that low and middle income families have borne the brunt of the Government’s austerity measures; further notes that the Government has plans to cut a further £60 billion in public spending over the next four years; further notes that successive governments of all political hues have presided over an underlying trend of rising income inequality since the early 1980s; recognises that men have consistently higher employment rates than women and that women are more likely to work in lower paid, lower-skilled occupations; further notes the growing numbers of workers on minimum wage and zero-hours contracts, and that there are more people now in working poverty than out of work poverty; further notes with concern the sharp rise in the number of people relying on foodbanks across the UK, including significant numbers of people in work; and calls on the Government to halt its further spending and welfare cuts and to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the impact of the Government’s austerity measures on the incidence of poverty and inequality.

Hywel Dda, a native of the west of my country, is one of the most esteemed early kings of Wales. His main historical contribution was that he codified early Welsh law. It is no coincidence that the building that houses National Assembly Members, the Welsh national Parliament, Ty Hywel, is named after him. His name is translated into English as “Hywel the Good”. He is so known because his laws were visionary, based on compassion rather than punishment, and were seen as just. In particular, early Welsh law clearly recognised the contribution of women to society, offering clear legal protections and status in society.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I once prepared a thesis on Hywel Dda. Did my hon. Friend know that back in 998 there were laws in Wales allowing women to own property? Unfortunately, our friends in England only caught up in 1882.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He makes my point for me, and his knowledge on these matters is unsurpassed.

In 928, Hywel made a pilgrimage to Rome. On his return, he held a legal conference in my home country of Carmarthenshire, at Ty Gwyn ar Daf, his residence near Whitland on the Pembrokeshire borders, which led to the legal system practised in Wales before our country was regrettably conquered. His laws meant that those higher up the social spectrum paid more for their crimes—a reverse of the post-2008 financial crash situation in the UK, where the financial elite have got off scot free while the most disadvantaged in society are paying the price through the obliteration of the public services and support they depend on. The basic founding principle of the Hywel Dda laws was equality. Following the death of the head of a family, the estate was distributed equally between all male siblings, rather than passing under the sole control of the eldest, as under the English system.

My reason for taking the House on this historical journey through mediaeval Wales is to make the case that the Welsh political tradition, even going back more than 1,000 years, has been based on the principles of equality and fairness. Those principles were essential elements to the sort of society that Welsh political rulers wanted to build and enshrine in law. Owain Glyndwr was the last ruler of an independent Wales and the seventh most important person of the last millennium, according to a Times poll in 1999. He heralded the return to the laws of Hywel Dda as the founding principle of his independent Wales at the beginning of the 15th century.

Robert Owen, another great Welshman from the county of Powys, is recognised throughout the world as one of the founding pioneers of socialism. In the early 19th century, he contributed to the work of a Committee of this House that was investigating the Poor Law. He called for a society of complete equality, and set about trying to create one with the communities that he had established.

Wales was, of course, the incubator of the industrial revolution, and the working-class uprisings of Merthyr in 1831 and the Chartists later in the same decade were driven by that Welsh aspiration for a more equal society, in which the working classes had a fair share of the proceeds of wealth generated by their toil. As the central element of his proclamation “The Red Dragon and the Red Flag”, Keir Hardie, a proud Scotsman who became the first-ever Independent Labour party Member of Parliament, declared clearly—probably after having given up faith in this place—that the way in which to create a more fair and equal society in Wales was to advance the cause of Welsh home rule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. He will be aware of the lack of competition in the market, where there are perhaps five or six suppliers with more or less mirrored pricing policies. The Government should examine that, and let us hope they remedy the situation affecting those individuals who are off the gas grid.

Wales is a country rich in natural resources, and it is a net exporter of electricity. No one in an energy-rich country such as mine should have to live in fuel poverty, yet 30% of the people in my country do. The energy sector was privatised by the Tories and the current market was set up by Labour in 2002, allowing the previous regional monopolies to merge into the big six. It is symbolic of the profiteering, privatisation and corporate greed that has undermined poorer areas and poorer people under Labour and Tory misrule.

Wales is a colonial economy, where our natural capital is extracted for no or little economic and social benefit to our people. No wonder the Westminster elite oppose empowering the Welsh Government by giving them control over our natural assets. Last week, the shadow Environment Secretary made an incredible intervention in the Scottish independence debate when she said that if Scotland votes yes, the remnants of the UK might stop importing Scottish electricity if Labour were in power and look to other markets for supply. That one intervention summarises the Westminster elite and how they view Wales and Scotland. No wonder that on social media these sort of “Project Fear” scare stories have earned the hashtag “know your place”. I would wager that my friends in the yes campaign in Scotland are delighted at such ill-judged interventions.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about that intervention last week. Does he think that if Wales were to follow our friends in Scotland, England might stop taking its water?

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is a very useful intervention, and I think the answer depends on the progress on the desalination plants. I am following the debate in Scotland with great interest, because we will be having the same debate in Wales within the next couple of decades and we will have the “Project Fear” manifesto off the bookshelf ready to read.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Elfyn Llwyd

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Is it not strange that no Welsh Labour Members are present to debate air passenger duty, given that the Labour First Minister of Wales has spent many millions of pounds of Welsh money on buying an airport in Cardiff?

[Jonathan Edwards]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, to which I shall return. Fifty million pounds of Welsh taxpayers’ money has been spent on buying an airport, and no Labour Member from Wales is present this evening to vote for a proposal that would enable the Welsh Government to make the most of that asset. It is a disgrace, and I hope that the Welsh media are listening to the debate and will report on it fully.

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Elfyn Llwyd

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I take what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I do not agree.

Nobody can deny that the Holtham report was a very good piece of work, and I think that what needs to be done first is the reform of the Barnett formula. Surely, that is the first thing to do; then we can look further. Without taking up too much time, I hope to develop a few thoughts about the fiscal powers that could reasonably be called for at this stage of the devolutionary process.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, but then I will have to make some progress.

[Jonathan Edwards]

When we debated the Silk commission a few months ago Labour Front-Benchers were completely opposed to the transfer of any fiscal powers. The poll today shows that more than 60% of the people of Wales are in favour of such a step, so does it not prove that the Labour party is completely out of tune with the wishes of the people of Wales?

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, yes; on this issue, that has to be right. If 60% of people are saying that fiscal powers are the next stage, that amounts to a large majority—and we should listen to them.

We have sent a submission, and we argued that significant tax revenues and powers should be transferred to the Welsh Government, including partial income tax, value added tax, corporation tax and resource taxes. We have also argued that powers to create and levy new taxes should be granted. We want ownership and control over the Crown Estates in Wales to be transferred in their entirety to the Welsh Government. We believe that taxation and borrowing powers play an important part in facilitating economic growth and ultimately in ensuring social justice. Such powers have been proven to work at a sub-central level throughout the world, but are lacking under the current devolution arrangements.

Half the current rate of income tax could be paid to the Treasury in London, with half remaining with the Welsh Government in Wales, who could then adjust according to need. The Welsh Government should then have the power to set Welsh income tax rates without restriction. These would be additional to the remaining UK rates.

Powers over VAT would give the Welsh Government a significant source of revenue, as well as the opportunity to make adjustments to achieve policy goals. This could ensure that Wales would not be disadvantaged by any future decision of the UK Government to switch the emphasis of the tax system between direct and indirect taxes. I recognise that variation of VAT rates within a member state might be prohibited under EU law. If that is the case, we would wish to see a transfer of imputed VAT revenues to the Welsh Government. We think all corporation tax revenues should be transferred, as should the power to set rates.

[Jonathan Edwards]

If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it is good enough for Wales.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am coming to that in a moment. My hon. Friend did not write the script; it is just that we are ad idem on the point.

Corporation tax offers a powerful tool to facilitate increased performance. It would be desirable to transfer powers over structural elements of the tax, such as the definition of taxable profit. We know that devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland has been a hot topic of discussion in recent times—and the same arguments, it seems to me, are relevant to Wales.

Wales should be empowered to reap the benefits of its resources. The land and water of Wales should be used for the greatest environmental, social and economic gain. All powers and revenues associated with existing resource taxes, such as landfill tax and aggregates levy, should—subject to EU approval—be transferred. Wales should also have the power to create and levy new taxes on all aspects of resource exploitation, including water and renewable energy. Indeed, we should have the greatest possible devolution of taxation powers and revenues permitted by European law.

Some specific taxes, powers and revenues relating to taxes on property and land— such as stamp duty, land tax and capital gains tax on property and land—should, we think, be transferred to Wales, as should air passenger duty, which is being transferred to Northern Ireland under this year’s Finance Bill. The debate on that very measure is taking place in Westminster Hall as we speak.

We also support the transfer of alcohol and tobacco duties, including the ability to place a minimum price per unit on alcohol sales. We do not think that national insurance contributions should be devolved in the current circumstances, as they are notionally hypothecated for the funding of social protection services. Those services are reserved to the UK Government and are needs-related, with common treatment of citizens throughout the UK. However, although the lack of a devolved benefits system rules out the devolution of national insurance contributions at present, we would like them to be devolved in the longer term.

The commission will receive its oral evidence during the coming weeks. We look forward to its report on part I later this year, and hope for the swift introduction of any recommended changes that receive support across the political ground and from experts.

The Welsh Government recently opened their consultation on a Welsh legal jurisdiction, and I shall be responding to it despite the Secretary of State’s rather disappointing pronouncements on the matter last week. I shall also be giving evidence to the constitutional committee of the Assembly in a few weeks’ time. Great changes have taken place in the Welsh legal system which would have been unthinkable some years ago, such as the creation of Legal Wales and the establishment of the administrative court for Wales. There are regular sittings of the Court of Appeal—both civil and criminal—in Cardiff, and judicial review cases involving Welsh public bodies are routinely being heard in Wales.

Following last year’s successful referendum, the National Assembly for Wales now has the power to legislate in devolved areas without the interference of Westminster, and as a distinct body of Welsh law begins to be built, we shall inevitably need a distinct Welsh legal jurisdiction. However, that must go hand in hand with Wales taking full responsibility for justice matters. It is common sense that the right to administer the justice of laws that apply to the people of Wales should be placed in the hands of our own Government.

It worries me that the Legal Services Commission will shortly rule out the one Welsh commissioner representing Wales, given the developments relating to, for instance, legal aid. I am sure that that would not happen if Cardiff had any say in the matter. As I have said, a corpus of Welsh law is developing. Divergence between Welsh and English legal practice and procedure in family law, criminal law and, obviously, administrative law is taking place each and every day, and anyone who practises in those areas must know what Welsh law dictates.

I believe that the National Assembly for Wales is the only legislature in the world that does not have a distinct legal jurisdiction. That is an anomaly, but I think it is also a bit of nonsense. We need only look at the introduction of elected police commissioners—which is likely to take place, despite the disagreement of our representatives in Wales and many Welsh Members of Parliament—the cuts in community justice through the courts closure programme and the continued failure to introduce either bilingual juries or a north Wales prison to see that the interests of Wales are not best served by its continuing slavishly to follow the line set down by London.

As Members will know from earlier debates and votes, we feel strongly about the devolution of permit powers for energy generation above 50 MW on land, and we believe that all powers in Welsh waters should be transferred to the Welsh Government. All parties have backed the change to some extent, and the question should be “how much” rather than “whether”. I am sure that the issue will be debated at some length in part II of the Silk commission. The media will also be discussed keenly, especially in view of the changes forced on S4C by the UK Government in the past two years and the interest of the Welsh Government in such matters.

As has already been said, devolution is not an event but a process, and I think it right to revisit and assess its workings. The people of Wales gave their opinion in the referendum last March, and they agreed to it. According to every opinion poll, they want more powers over policing, justice, energy and the media, at the very least. We look forward to the publication of the reports and their implementation as soon as possible, and we hope that the necessary Government time for any legislation that may be required will be found during the present Parliament.

I am very grateful to have had this opportunity to take part in the debate. I apologise for speaking for so long; I probably took too many interventions. I am also pleased that so many Members wish to contribute to the debate.