Wales Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It may seem pretty good to some hon. Members, but we are drifting a little from where we should be. I know we are encompassing everything we need to, but I do not want to open up a full-blown debate on the House of Lords.

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree with many of the points my hon. Friend has made about the democratic deficit we could be heading towards. He said that the boundary review is to the Government’s advantage, and clearly that is their intention. But it is clearly not to the liking of all those on the Government Benches, as we saw from some of the points of order and comments coming from Conservative Back Benchers last week. Does he agree that the Government might well be stoking up trouble on their own side with this democratic atrocity?

Wales Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 118, page 2, line 28, after “7A)” insert

“and is not ancillary to another provision (whether in the Act or another enactment) that does not relate to a reserved matter”.

Clause 3 establishes the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. This amendment makes clear that the Assembly has power to make provision touching upon reserved matters for the purpose of enforcing provisions in Assembly Acts that do not relate to reserved matters or otherwise making them effective.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 148, page 2, line 33, leave out “subsection (2)(b) does” and insert

“subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c) do”.

The amendment restores the Assembly’s competence by enabling it to legislate in an ancillary way in relation to reserved matters.

Amendment 149, page 2, line 34, leave out from “provision” to end of line 6 on page 3 and insert

“which is within the Assembly’s legislative competence (or would be if it were included in an Act of the Assembly).”

The amendment restores the Assembly’s competence by enabling it to legislate in an ancillary way in relation to reserved matters.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 41, line 24, at end insert

“(that is, the property, rights and interests under the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners)

‘(3A) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of the requirements of section 90B(5) to (8).”

This amendment is consequential on new Clause (The Crown Estate) which would transfer executive and legislative competence of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales.

Amendment 6, page 41, line 30 , at end insert—

“2A Paragraph 1 does not reserve the consolidation in English and Welsh of the principal legislation delineating the powers of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government, including (but not limited to) the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Wales Act 2011 and the Wales Act 2016.”

This amendment would allow the National Assembly for Wales to consolidate in both English and Welsh the statutes bills containing the current constitutional settlement affecting Wales.

Amendment 155, page 42, line 20, leave out “prosecutors” and insert “the Crown Prosecution Service”.

The amendment clarifies the reservation so that “the Crown Prosecution Service” is reserved, rather than “prosecutors” more generally, as this could prohibit Assembly legislation enabling devolved authorities to prosecute, such as local authorities.

Amendment 119, page 42, line 26, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).

This amendment seeks to allow ancillary provision by removing the exception in paragraph 6(2) and the related definition in paragraph 6(3), so that reliance can be placed on the general power to make ancillary provision made clear by the amendment to clause 3 proposed by amendment 118.

Amendment 83, page 47, line 32, leave out Section B5.

This amendment removes the reservation of crime, public order and policing from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 122, page 48, line 9, leave out

“The subject matter of Parts 1 to 6”

and insert

“Anti-social behaviour injunctions under Part 1”.

This amendment is intended to narrow the reservation to the system of anti-social behaviour injunctions provided for by Part 1 of the 2014 Act.

Amendment 84, page 48, leave out line 11.

This amendment removes the reservation of dangerous dogs and dogs dangerously out of control from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 85, page 48, line 15, leave out Section B8.

This amendment removes the reservation of prostitution from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 86, page 48, line 24, leave out Section B11.

This amendment removes the reservation of the rehabilitation of offenders from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 117, page 49, leave out lines 5 to 10.

This amendment will remove the reservation of knives from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 123, page 49, leave out lines 24 to 29.

Paragraph 55 of the new Schedule 7A to be inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006 by Schedule 1 would reserve the licensing of the provision of entertainment and late night refreshment from the Assembly’s legislative competence. Paragraph 56 would reserve the sale and supply of alcohol. This amendment removes both reservations.

Amendment 116, page 49, leave out lines 24 to 26.

This amendment will remove the reservation of the licensing of the provision of entertainment and late night refreshment from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 87, page 49, line 27, leave out Section B17.

This amendment removes the reservation of alcohol from the list of reserved powers.

Government amendments 53 to 58.

Amendment 88, page 55, line 5, leave out Section C15.

This amendment removes the reservation of Water and sewerage from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 89, page 55, line 28, leave out Section C17.

This amendment removes the reservation of Sunday trading from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 90, page 55, line 32, leave out Section D1.

This amendment removes the reservation of generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 91, page 56, line 27, leave out Section D3.

This amendment removes the reservation of coal from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 92, page 57, line 2, leave out Section D5.

This amendment removes the reservation of heat and cooling from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 93, page 57, line 17, leave out Section D6.

This amendment removes the reservation of energy conservation from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 94, page 57, line 24, leave out Section E1.

This amendment removes the reservation of road transport from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 161, page 57, line 35, leave out from “roads” to the end of line 36 and insert—

“107A Speed limits

107B Road and traffic signs”

This amendment would make speed limits and road and traffic signs reserved matters.

Amendment 95, page 58, leave out line 36.

This amendment removes the reservation of railway services from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 96, page 59, leave out line 21.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 61 to Clause 28 which would remove the exception to the devolution of executive functions in relation to Welsh harbours of “reserved trust ports”.

Amendment 140, page 59, line 21, leave out “Reserved trust ports and”.

Section E3 of the new Schedule 7A to be inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006 by Schedule 1 would reserve certain marine and waterway transport matters from the Assembly’s legislative competence. Paragraph 119 in that Section would reserve trust ports. This amendment removes this reservation.

Amendment 97, page 59, leave out line 23.

This amendment removes the reservation of coastguard services and maritime search and rescue from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 98, page 59, leave out line 24.

This amendment removes the reservation of hovercraft from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 141, page 59, line 28, leave out “, reserved trust ports or”.

This amendment is consequential upon amendment 140.

Amendment 142, page 59, line 37, leave out

“that is not a reserved trust port”.

This amendment is consequential upon amendment 140.

Amendment 143, page 60, leave out lines 4 to 5.

This amendment is consequential upon amendment 140.

Amendment 100, page 61, line 21, at end insert—

“Benefits entitlement to which, or the purposes of which, are the same as or similar to those of any of the following benefits—

(a) universal credit under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012,

(b) jobseeker’s allowance (whether contributions-based or income based) under the Jobseekers Act 1995,

(c) employment and support allowance (whether contributory or income-related) under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007,

(d) income support under section 124 of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992,

(e) housing benefit under section 130 of that Act,

(f) child tax credit and working tax credit under the Tax Credits Act 2002.

The benefits referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f) above are—

(a) in the case of income-based jobseeker’s allowance and income-related employment support allowance, those benefits as they existed on 28 April 2013 (the day before their abolition),

(b) in the case of the other benefits, those benefits as they existed on 28 May 2015.”

This amendment devolves all working age benefits to be replaced by Universal credit, and any benefit introduced to replace Universal credit.

Amendment 101, page 61, line 21, at end insert—

“Benefits entitlement to which, or the purposes of which, are the same as or similar to those of any of the following benefits—

(a) guardian’s allowance under section 77 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,

(b) child benefit under Part 9 of that Act.”

This amendment devolves to the National Assembly for Wales, child benefit and Guardian’s allowance including conditionality and sanctions regimes.

Amendment 102, page 64, line 17, leave out Section H1.

This amendment would remove employment and industrial relations from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 108, page 64, line 17, leave out Section H1 and insert—

“H1 National Minimum Wage

The subject-matter of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.”

This amendment would devolve employment rights and duties and industrial relations, except for the national minimum wage, to the National Assembly for Wales.

Amendment 124, page 64, line 44, at end insert—

“Terms and conditions of employment and industrial relations in Wales public authorities and services contracted out or otherwise procured by such authorities.”

Section H1 of the new Schedule 7A to be inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006 by Schedule 1 would reserve employment rights and duties and industrial relations from Assembly’s legislative competence. This amendment provides an exception to ensure that the Assembly retains its legislative competence over terms and conditions of service for employees in devolved public services and industrial relations in such services.

Amendment 99, page 65, line 7, leave out Section H3.

This amendment would devolve employment support programmes to the National Assembly for Wales.

Amendment 109, page 65, line 24, leave out Section J1.

This amendment removes the reservation of abortion from the list of reserved powers, to bring Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 103, page 66, line 31, leave out Section J6.

This amendment would remove Health and Safety from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 105, page 67, line 14, leave out Section K1.

This amendment would remove broadcasting form the list of reserved powers

Amendment 107, page 67, line 17, at end insert—

“Exceptions

The regulation of:

(a) party political broadcasts in connection with elections that are within the legislative competence of the Assembly and

(b) referendum campaign broadcasts in connection with referendums held under Acts of the National Assembly for Wales.”

This amendment would devolve competence to the National Assembly for Wales in relation to party political broadcasts for Welsh and local elections.

Amendment 106, page 67, line 29, leave out Section K5.

This amendment would remove sports grounds from the list of reservations

Amendment 110, page 68, line 2, leave out Section L1.

This amendment removes justice from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 111, page 69, line 25, leave out Section L11.

This amendment removes the reservation of prisons and offender management from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 104, page 72, line 14, leave out Section N1.

This amendment would remove equal opportunities from the list of reserved powers

Amendment 112, page 73, line 24, leave out “bank holidays”.

This amendment, along with amendment 85, will devolve to the National Assembly for Wales, competence over bank holidays.

Amendment 113, page 73, line 27, at end insert “bank holidays”.

This amendment, along with amendment 112, will devolve to the National Assembly for Wales, competence over bank holidays.

Amendment 114, page 74, line 7, leave out Section N8.

This amendment will remove the reservation of the Children’s Commissioner from the list of reserved powers.

Amendment 115, page 74, line 11, leave out Section N9.

This amendment will remove the reservation of teacher’s pay and conditions from the list of reserved powers.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 120, in schedule 2, page 77, line 17, at end insert—

“1A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a modification that is ancillary to a provision made (whether by the Act in question or another enactment) which does not relate to reserved matters if it is a modification of the law on reserved matters in paragraph 6 or 7 of Schedule 7A.”

This amendment provides an exception for ancillary provision about certain justice matters that is not subject to a necessity test.

Amendment 121, page 77, line 18, leave out “a” and insert “any other”.

This amendment is consequential upon amendment 120.

Amendment 156, page 77, line 21, leave out from “matters” to end of line 26.

The amendment removes the necessity test in relation to the law on reserved matters.

Amendment 157, page 78, line 2, leave out paragraph 4 and insert—

“4 (1) A provision of an Act of the Assembly cannot make modifications of, or confer power by subordinate legislation to make modifications of, the criminal law. (See also paragraph 6 of Schedule 7A (single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales).)

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a modification that has a purpose (other than modification of the criminal law) which does not relate to a reserved matter.

(3) This paragraph applies to civil penalties as it applies to offences; and references in this paragraph to the criminal law are to be read accordingly).”

The amendment inserts a restriction so that the Assembly cannot modify criminal law unless it is for a purpose other than a reserved purpose. This would bring it into line with the private law restriction.

Amendment 34, page 79, line 29, leave out from “Assembly” to end of line 39.

The amendment removes the requirements relating to the composition and internal arrangements of the Assembly Committee with oversight of the Auditor General and/or their functions.

Amendment 35, page 80, line 41, at end insert—

“(i) subsection 120(1) as regards a modification that adds a person or body;”

The amendment will enable the Assembly to amend sections 120(1) of the 2006 Act which provide for ‘relevant persons’ which receive funding directly from the Welsh Consolidated Fund.”

Amendment 36, page 80, line 42, at end insert—

(iii) subsection 124(3) as regards a modification that adds a person or body;”

The amendment will enable the Assembly to amend sections 124(3) of the 2006 Act which provide for ‘relevant persons’ which receive funding directly from the Welsh Consolidated Fund.

Amendment 37, page 81, line 22, leave out from “taxes” to end of line 23.

The amendment removes the requirement for Secretary of State consent for the Assembly to amend the provisions of Part 5 of the 2006 Act which are not specifically referred to in paragraph 7(2)(d) and section 159, where the amendment is incidental to, or consequential on, a provision of an Act of the Assembly relating to budgetary procedures.

Amendment 128, page 82, line 30, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment is consequential upon amendment 127.

Amendment 127, page 82, line 44, at end insert—

‘( ) Paragraph 8(1)(a) and (c) does not apply in relation to the Water Services Regulation Authority.”

This amendment would extend the existing exception for the Water Services Regulation Authority to include the matters that would otherwise be outside competence by virtue of paragraph 8(1)(c) of Schedule 7B.

Amendment 129, page 83, line 42, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment removes the restriction in paragraph 11(1)(c) of the new Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be inserted by Schedule 2 to the Bill which would prevent the Assembly from legislating to remove or modify functions of a Minister of the Crown exercisable in relation to water and sewerage matters (including control of pollution) and matters relating to land drainage, flood risk management and coastal protection.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

New clause 7—Levies in respect of agriculture, taking wild game, aquaculture and fisheries, etc.—

“(1) In Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006, section A1 is amended as follows.

(2) In the Exceptions, after the exception for devolved taxes insert—

““Levies in respect of agriculture, taking wild game, aquaculture and fisheries (including sea fisheries) or a related activity: their collection and management.”

(3) After the Exceptions insert—

“Interpretation

“agriculture” includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming and livestock breeding and keeping, and the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds.

“aquaculture” includes the breeding, rearing or cultivation of fish (of any kind), seafood or aquatic organisms.

“related activity” means the production, processing, manufacture, marketing or distribution of—

(a) anything (including any creature alive or dead) produced or taken in the course of agriculture, taking wild game or aquaculture, or caught (by any means) in a fishery,

(b) any product which is derived to any substantial extent from anything so produced or caught.””

This new clause would give the National Assembly for Wales general legislative competence in respect of agricultural, aquacultural and fisheries levies.

New clause 10—Water Services Regulation Authority—

“(1) In section 27 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (general duty of the authority to keep matters under review)—

(a) in subsection (3), after “may” insert “subject to subsection (3A),”;

(b) after subsection (3), insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before giving general directions under subsection (3) connected with—

(a) matters in relation to which functions are exercised by water or sewage undertakers whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales,

(b) licensed activities carried out by water supply licensees that use the supply system of a water undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales, or

(c) licensed activities carried on by sewerage licensees that use the sewerage system of a sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales.”;

(c) in subsection (4), in both places where it appears, after “Secretary of State” insert “, the Welsh Ministers”.

(2) In section 192B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (annual and other reports)—

(a) in subsection (1), after “Secretary of State” insert “and the Welsh Ministers”;

(b) in subsection (2)(d), for “as the Assembly” substitute “or activities in Wales as the Welsh Ministers”;

(c) in subsection (4), for “Assembly” substitute “Welsh Ministers”;

(d) after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) The Welsh Ministers shall—

(a) lay a copy of each annual report before the Assembly; and

(b) arrange for the report to be published in such manner as they consider appropriate;

(c) in subsection (7), omit “the Assembly,””.

(3) In Schedule 1A to the Water Industry Act 1991 (the Water Services Regulation Authority)—

(a) in paragraph 1—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1), after “Secretary of State” insert “and the Welsh Ministers acting jointly”;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), omit paragraph (a);

(b) in paragraph 2(2), after “Secretary of State” insert “and the Welsh Ministers acting jointly”;

(c) in paragraph 3—

(i) in sub-paragraph (2), paragraph (a), after “Secretary of State” insert “and the Welsh Ministers”;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), paragraph (b), after “Secretary of State” insert “and the Welsh Ministers acting jointly”;

(iii) omit sub-paragraph (3);

(d) in paragraph 4—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1) and (2), in each place where it appears, after “Secretary of State” insert “and the Welsh Ministers acting jointly”;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (3), for “determines” substitute “and the Welsh Ministers acting jointly determine” and at the end insert “and the Welsh Ministers acting jointly”;

(e) in paragraph 9(3)(b), for “Assembly” substitute “Welsh Ministers”.”

This new clause would amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to confer functions relating to the Water Services Regulation Authority (OFWAT) (which exercises functions in England and Wales) onto the Welsh Ministers and it would adjust the functions of the Secretary of State to better reflect the current devolution of water matters to Wales.

Amendment 61, in clause 28, page 23, line 32, leave out from “Wales” to the end of line 33.

This amendment removes the exception to the devolution of executive functions in relation to Welsh harbours of “reserved trust ports”.

Amendment 134, page 23, line 38, leave out subsection (4).

Clause 28(4) provides an exception to the general transfer of functions by clause 28 so that where a function relates to two or more harbours the function is transferred only to the extent that both or all of the harbours to which it relates are wholly in Wales and are not reserved trust ports. This amendment is partly consequential upon amendment 61, but it would also ensure that the Welsh Ministers retain functions where one harbour is in Wales and the other is not.

Amendment 62, page 23, line 40, leave out “and are not reserved trust ports”.

See amendment 61.

Amendment 63, page 24, leave out line 6.

See amendment 61.

Clause 28 stand part.

Amendment 64, in clause 29, page 24, line 13, leave out

“, other than a reserved trust port,”

See amendment 61.

Amendment 65, page 24, line 17, leave out

“, other than reserved trust ports”.

See amendment 61.

Amendment 66, page 24, line 21, leave out

“or a reserved trust port”.

See amendment 61.

Amendment 67, page 24, line 25, leave out

“other than a reserved trust port”.

See amendment 61.

Amendment 68, page 24, line 26, leave out subsection (5).

See amendment 61.

Amendment 69, page 24, line 31, leave out

“other than a reserved trust port”

See amendment 61.

Clauses 29 to 31 stand part.

Amendment 137, in clause 32, page 25, leave out lines 34 to 39 and insert—

(a) will be wholly or partly in England or in waters adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea, and.””

This amendment is consequential upon amendment 61.

Amendment 71, page 25, line 39, leave out “a reserved trust port”.

See amendment 61.

Amendment 138, page 25, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 26 and insert—

(a) the harbour facilities are wholly or partly in England or in waters adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea, and.””

This amendment is consequential upon amendment 61.

Amendment 72, page 26, line 2, leave out from “and” to end of line 3.

See amendment 61.

Amendment 73, page 26, line 4, leave out subsection (4).

See amendment 61.

Clauses 32 to 35 stand part.

New clause 1—The Crown Estate—

“After section 89 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, insert—

“89B The Crown Estate

(1) The Treasury may make a scheme transferring on the transfer date all the existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners (“the Commissioners”) to the Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by the Welsh Ministers (“the transferee”).

(2) The existing Welsh functions are the Commissioners’ functions relating to the part of the Crown Estate that, immediately before the transfer date, consists of—

(a) property, rights or interests in land in Wales, excluding property, rights or interests mentioned in subsection (3), and

(b) rights in relation to the Welsh zone.

(3) Where immediately before the transfer date part of the Crown Estate consists of property, rights or interests held by a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, subsection (2)(a) excludes—

(a) the property, rights or interests, and

(b) any property, rights or interests in, or in a member of, a partner in the limited partnership.

(4) Functions relating to rights within subsection (2)(b) are to be treated for the purposes of this Act as exercisable in or as regards Wales.

(5) The property, rights and interests to which the existing Welsh functions relate must continue to be managed on behalf of the Crown.

(6) That does not prevent the disposal of property, rights or interests for the purposes of that management.

(7) Subsection (5) also applies to property, rights or interests acquired in the course of that management (except revenues to which section 1(1) of the Civil List Act 1952 applies or are to be paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund).

(8) The property, rights and interests to which subsection (5) applies must be maintained as an estate in land or as estates in land managed separately (with any proportion of cash or investments that seems to the person managing the estate to be required for the discharge of functions relating to its management).

(9) The scheme may specify any property, rights or interests that appear to the Treasury to fall within subsection (2)(a) or (b), without prejudice to the functions transferred by the scheme.

(10) The scheme must provide for the transfer to the transferee of designated rights and liabilities of the Commissioners in connection with the functions transferred.

(11) The scheme must include provision to secure that the employment of any person in Crown employment (within the meaning of section 191 of the Employment Rights Act 1996) is not adversely affected by the transfer.

(12) The scheme must include such provision as the Treasury consider necessary or expedient—

(a) in the interests of defence or national security,

(b) in connection with access to land for the purposes of telecommunications, or with other matters falling within Section C9 in Part 2 of Schedule 1,

(c) for securing that the management of property, rights or interests to which subsection (5) applies does not conflict with the exploitation of resources falling within Section D2 in Part 2 of Schedule 1, or with other reserved matters in connection with their exploitation, and

(d) for securing consistency, in the interests of consumers, in the management of property, rights or interests to which subsection (5) applies and of property, rights or interests to which the Commissioners’ functions other than the existing Welsh functions relate, so far as it affects the transmission or distribution of electricity or the provision or use of electricity interconnectors.

(13) Any transfer by the scheme is subject to any provision under subsection (12).

(14) The scheme may include—

(a) incidental, supplemental and transitional provision,

(b) consequential provision, including provision amending an enactment, instrument or other document,

(c) provision conferring or imposing a function on any person including any successor of the transferee,

(d) provision for the creation of new rights or liabilities in relation to the functions transferred.

(15) On the transfer date, the existing Welsh functions and the designated rights and liabilities are transferred and vest in accordance with the scheme.

(16) A certificate by the Treasury that anything specified in the certificate has vested in any person by virtue of the scheme is conclusive evidence for all purposes.

(17) The Treasury may make a scheme under this section only with the agreement of the Welsh Ministers.

(18) The power to make a scheme under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument, a draft of which has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.

(19) The power to amend the scheme is exercisable so as to provide for an amendment to have effect from the transfer date.

(20) If an order amends a scheme and does not contain provision—

(a) made by virtue of subsection (12) or (19) of that section, or

(b) adding to, replacing or omitting any part of the text of an Act,

then, instead of subsection (18), the instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(21) For the purposes of the exercise on and after the transfer date of functions transferred by the scheme under this section, the Crown Estate Act 1961 applies in relation to the transferee as it applied immediately before that date to the Crown Estate Commissioners, with the following modifications—

(a) a reference to the Crown Estate is to be read as a reference to the property, rights and interests to which subsection (5) applies,

(b) the appropriate procedure for subordinate legislation is that no Minister of the Crown is to make the legislation unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament,

(c) a reference to the Treasury is to be read as a reference to the Welsh Ministers,

(d) a reference to the Comptroller and Auditor General is to be read as a reference to the Auditor General for Wales,

(e) a reference to Parliament or either House of Parliament is to be read as a reference to the National Assembly for Wales,

(f) the following do not apply—

(None) in section 1, subsections (1), (4) and (7),

(None) in section 2, subsections (1) and (2) and, if the Welsh Ministers are the transferee, the words in subsection (3) from “in relation thereto” to the end,

(None) in section 4, the words “with the consent of Her Majesty signified under the Royal Sign Manual”,

(None) sections 5, 7 and 8 and Schedule 1.

(22) Subsection (7) is subject to any provision made by Order in Council under subsection (9) or by any other enactment, including an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the National Assembly for Wales.

(23) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as She considers appropriate for or in connection with the exercise by the transferee under the scheme (subject to subsections (5) to (8)) of functions transferred by the scheme, including provision taking effect on or before the transfer date.

(24) An Order in Council under subsection (23) may in particular—

(a) establish a body, including a body that may be nominated under that section as the transferee,

(b) amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify an enactment, an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, or an instrument made under an enactment or Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales.

(25) The power to make an Order in Council under subsection (24) is exercisable by Welsh statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.

(26) That power is to be regarded as being exercisable within devolved competence before the transfer date for the purposes of making provision consequential on legislation of, or scrutinised by, the National Assembly for Wales.

(27) In this section—

“designated” means specified in or determined in accordance with the scheme,

“the transfer date” means a date specified by the scheme as the date on which the scheme is to have effect.””

This new clause mirrors the Scotland Act 2016 in transferring executive and legislative competence of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales.

[Paul Flynn]

Since we met in Committee last week, we have had the wonderful celebration of the Wales team’s great achievement in the European cup, which is a matter of enormous pride to us as a nation. I was delighted to see the celebrations on Saturday, which were the biggest thing to happen in Cardiff since VE-day and VJ-day, which I am sure we both remember, Mr Hoyle, if not since when Cardiff won the FA cup in 1926. These events will bring many benefits for the people of Wales. We feel pride not just in the skills of our team, but in the behaviour of our fans.

I saw a performance by the Secretary of State on television yesterday in which he was dancing with a ball on his head and foot. It seemed to be a wordless message; I did not quite get the point. Given these uncertain political times, he might have been auditioning for a future job as a circus performer, but perhaps there was a subliminal message that had he been substituted for Aaron Ramsey, the result of the Portugal game might have been different. None the less, we have had a moment of great happiness for our country. It is a joy to think that the beautiful national language in our anthem was probably heard by more people than at any time in its 3,000-year history. That intrigued many people, and Wales has been given a much sharper identity that will bring about practical benefits.

The Bill’s is proceeding in a consensual way. A great political tumult is going on about our ears, in various forms, but here is an oasis of calm and good sense, as all parties support a beneficial Bill that will give Wales further devolution. Progress on that is slow and endless, but the Bill is a step forward.

I will speak first to amendments 118 and 119. Amendment 118, together with consequential amendments to paragraph 6 of proposed new section 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 under schedule 1, and to paragraph 1 of proposed new schedule 7B under schedule 2, take us back to issues flowing from the Government’s insistence on retaining the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. In accepting that position, as we must following last Tuesday’s Division, we must now ensure that the Assembly has, within the single jurisdiction, powers that enable its legislation to be enforceable and effective, which is what amendment 118 would achieve.

In our view, the Bill as drafted would restrict the Assembly’s legislative competence inappropriately and reverse the competence given to the Assembly under the 2006 Act, section 108(5) of which allows the Assembly to make what might be termed “ancillary” provisions. At present, the Assembly has competence to legislate on matters relating to one or more of the listed subjects in part 1 of schedule 7 to the 2006 Act. That Act also provides that the Assembly has powers to make provision about non-devolved matters when that is done to make a devolved provision effective or to enforce a provision if it is otherwise consequential or incidental to the devolved provision. My understanding is that this is not the UK Government’s intention, meaning that our old friend unintentional consequences might well apply.

I am sure that the Government do not, in common with all parties in the House, intend to prevent the Assembly from making provision to enforce or to make effective devolved legislation. However, the Bill currently either prevents that, or is unclear about whether the Assembly will have the same ability as at present. Under the reserved power model, an Assembly Act will be outside competence if it relates to a reserved matter in proposed new schedule 7A. There is no express equivalent in the Bill to section 108(5) of the 2006 Act. Provisions relating to reserved matters will be outside competence and will not be law even if the intent of the provision in question is confined to making legislation effective or to enforce it. Other provisions are designed to address this issue, but Welsh Government officials have provided the Wales Office with several examples of when the Bill as drafted would have prevented uncontentious provisions in Assembly Acts from being included in that legislation.

These are not hypothetical problems. We have a strange history of the consequences of legislation. We have sometimes had legislation that was cumbersome and slow, while we have also seen judge-driven legislation involving Acts that were subject to adjudication by people outside Wales. Unless the Bill is amended as we propose, the Assembly’s ability to make its legislation enforceable and effective will be inappropriately constrained, and I do not believe that that is the Secretary of State’s intention. We shall not press the amendments to a Division, but I urge the Secretary of State to give very careful consideration to the issues that they raise, to instruct his officials to discuss them further with Welsh Government officials and to table amendments on Report that reflect an agreed position on this important issue.

Let me mention some of the general principles that should apply to our consideration of the schedule of reserved matters. In a reserved power model, it is for the UK Government to explain why the relevant subject matter must be reserved to the centre—to the UK Parliament and Government—for decision. Much of the schedule’s content is uncontroversial. It is common ground that matters such as foreign affairs, the armed forces and the UK’s security system should be determined at a UK level. On other matters, however, the situation is more contested. If reservations affect the Assembly’s existing competence, it is vital that the case for them is made explicitly and that the drafting of the relevant provision is precise and specific. That is essential to protect the Assembly’s ability to legislate coherently and within its competence.

Amendment 83 deals with policing, which is an interesting subject area in which change is desirable. The UK Government’s own Silk commission recommended devolution of policing on the basis that it is a public service that is a particular concern to people in their daily lives, and therefore similar to health, education and the fire service. That conclusion was reached in the light of extensive evidence, including from professional police bodies, chief constables and police and crime commissioners. I understand that the four present PCCs in Wales are in favour of such a change, and opinion polls show clear public support for it.

Silk noted that devolution would improve accountability by aligning police responsibility with police funding, much of which already comes from devolved sources. In short, he argued that devolution would allow crime and the causes of crime to be tackled holistically under the overall policy framework of the Welsh Government. As Silk noted, present arrangements are “complex”, “incoherent” and “lack transparency”.

Policing is the only major front-line public service that is not at present the responsibility of the devolved institutions in Wales. That anomalous position means that it is significantly more difficult to achieve advantages of collaboration with other blue light services, which is strongly advocated for England in current Government policy, as well as with other relevant public services. Deleting the reservation would address that anomaly, but responsibility for counter-terrorism activity should not be devolved—I would continue to argue that it should be reserved under paragraph 31 of new schedule 7A. The Assembly would be able to legislate in respect of bodies such as the National Crime Agency and the British Transport police only with the consent of UK Ministers, because they are “public authorities” within the meaning of paragraph 8 of new schedule 7B, which restricts the Assembly’s powers in respect of such bodies.

After reflecting on the Silk commission’s recommendations, what is envisaged is the devolution of responsibilities predominantly for local policing. The key point is that devolution would enable police services in Wales to work even more closely alongside other devolved public bodies, with greater opportunities to secure improved community safety and crime prevention.

In England—this is a fine example on which we can base our recommendations—the UK Government are pushing forward the devolution of policing and justice powers with the greatest enthusiasm. Only last week, it was reported that the Minister responsible for prisons—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)—declared himself as

“a firm fan of devolution”.

Having signed over new powers to the mayor of Greater Manchester, he hailed

“a new dawn for the justice system”

that is

“run by locals, for locals”

and is an effective justice system that meets the needs of local people. However, in a reserved power model of devolution for Wales, there is an overriding imperative to keep the control of these matters in Whitehall. Where is the consistency and fair treatment for Wales? If something is good enough for Manchester, surely it is good enough for Wales.

Amendment 122 deals with antisocial behaviour. Whatever the outcome on policing, it is imperative that we do not reduce the Assembly’s existing competence for dealing with antisocial behaviour in devolved contexts. That is why there needs to be an amendment to paragraph 41 of new schedule 7A, which relates to antisocial behaviour. As drafted, the Bill would reserve matters that are currently within the Assembly’s legislative competence, such as antisocial behavioural matters relating to housing or nuisance. That would represent a significant reduction of the Assembly’s existing competence, so the Welsh Government amendment would narrow the reservation to more closely reflect the current situation.

Amendment 123 is on the vexed subject of alcohol. As drafted, the Bill would reserve the sale and supply of alcohol, and the licensing of provision of entertainment and late-night refreshment. The amendment would delete the reservations and allow the Assembly to legislate on those matters.

Alcohol misuse is a major public health issue and a principal cause of preventable death and illness in Wales. It can lead to a great many health and social harm problems, in particular for a significant minority of addicts and people who drink to excess for other reasons. Given those impacts and the direct link with devolved responsibility for public health and the NHS, there is a pressing need to tackle alcohol misuse, so the Assembly and Welsh Government must have the full range of tools at their disposal. Policies that control the way in which alcohol is sold and supplied are widely acknowledged to be among the most effective mechanisms for tackling alcohol-related harms. Regulating the availability of alcohol is an important way to reduce the harmful use of alcohol, particularly by tackling easy access to alcohol by vulnerable and high-risk groups. Licensing controls are an essential tool which must form part of the Welsh Government’s strategy to tackle alcohol- related abuse. The reservations place unnecessary and inappropriate constraints on action to tackle alcohol availability in Wales. Those powers are devolved in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, where similar public health challenges were faced, and they should also be devolved in Wales.

Defence Spending

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s speech with great admiration. He talks about banishing demons. There are 632 demons that we cannot banish: those who will be commemorated tomorrow; those who died as a result of terrible mistakes made in this Chamber that sent them to Helmand and Iraq. Should we not acknowledge the dreadful delusions, under which we have been operating for the past 12 years, which created those disasters, before we repeat them?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. In fairness, Mr Flynn, you have just asked to be put on the speaking list. I want to hear your speech later rather than now.

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

Yes, it was St John’s, the old school on the other side of the river, which became part of Clytha primary.

The school was set up in the teeth of all kinds of very powerful opposition, but some of those first pupils who are now 50 years old are now teachers of Welsh themselves in other schools. We are seeing the great triumph of the Welsh language and the great strength that it has now. That is very moving and we should celebrate it. Whenever people ask, “What’s special about the Welsh language?”, I point to its beauty. On Radio 4 last Saturday, somebody who teaches it in Brighton talked about the cadence of the language. Listen to the magic of the words, the soft, seductive words:

“Nant y Mynydd groyw loyw, Yn ymdroelli tua’r pant, Rhwng y brwyn yn sisial ganu; O na bawn i fel y nant!”

The language is also muscular:

“Argoed, Argoed y mannau dirgel, Ble’r oedd dy fryniau, dy hafanu dyfnion, Dy drofau tywyll, dy drefi tawel?”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think we may have to help the Hansard reporters at this rate. We need to try to ensure that they are not struggling too much.

[Paul Flynn]

Among the improvements we have seen is that there are now Hansard reporters who are proficient in Welsh. We do not have problems now.

I want to talk about the neglect of our history. As a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I am bored stiff with Magna Carta. It was significant because it gave some kind of democracy to about 25 barons and their families and took a bit of power away from the King, but to compare it to cyfraith Hywel Dda is nonsense. After Magna Carta, the English were living in the dark ages compared with 10th-century Wales under cyfraith Hywel Dda.

Iraq Inquiry

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

Because they were fooled. The right hon. Gentleman should recall—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This has been a good debate, and we do not want to spoil it. Let us continue in the manner we have done so far. I want to get to the end and make sure everybody gets to speak.

Devolution and the Union

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Members should address the Chair. The last two speakers have felt the need to face in the opposite direction rather than facing the Chair. I think that the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). I hope that Members will address each other through the Chair from now on.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is making a thoughtful speech. Does he think that the Republic of Ireland would have had the same success without the powers that it now has under independence, or what we might call total devolution? Does he think that those powers have contributed greatly to what Ireland has now?

[Paul Flynn]

I shall tread carefully here. I do not want to get involved in the Scottish situation, on which we remained silent throughout the referendum. Members of my family were in the Irish Anti-Partition League and in Sinn Fein in the 1920s. All those divisions were there, although of course we hope that they will come to an end. That has certainly been part of the history of these islands, and we should rejoice at what has in many ways been a happy outcome for Ireland, after the misery and suffering of previous centuries.

We are now in a delicate position, because what happened in Scotland is having repercussions. The vow must be respected. There is no question of turning back on that; if we do, there will be a wave of cynicism from Scotland and elsewhere. No referendum solves everything; it is never a final moment. I recall the 1975 referendum on Europe, which hardly settled things in that regard. The entrenched opinions became more deeply entrenched, and that continues to this day, with people still feeling dissatisfied with the result.

In Wales, there was a tiny majority in favour of devolution in 1997, but the next time a vote was held, 65% of the vote was in favour. Huge changes are taking place. When we campaigned for a Welsh Assembly, there were those who said that we were on a slippery slope. Some were against devolution because it represented a slippery slope towards more independence in Wales; others supported it because they were in favour of just such a slippery slope. If there is one certain way of ensuring the break-up of the United Kingdom, it is to arouse the sleeping giant of English nationalism. We have heard about this today, and as the antagonism—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

Energy Prices

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I came to the Chamber expecting a debate about energy prices. Nowhere on the Order Paper does it say that we would be treated to a drivelling, ad hominem attack on the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order. You have made your point, Mr Flynn, but it is up to the Secretary of State whether he wishes to give way. He is giving way now and again. It is not as though he could not hear you, so I suspect he is not giving way by choice.

Badger Cull

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I can understand that frustration is being shown at this time, but I am not in a position to offer any more advice.

[Paul Flynn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that this debate was followed by many thousands of people throughout the country who have shown great interest in it through their tweets and responses. Will they not regard it as an outrage when there is a vote of 219 to one and the Government decide to ignore it? Are they out to prove themselves to be the really nasty party?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is also not a point of order. It is a matter for the Government when and if they wish to have a vote.

Liaison Committee Report

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last, but certainly not least, Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Has the Chair of the Committee observed that this Government, possibly more than any other, have followed the traditional practice of blaming all problems on their predecessors, then on the European Union and then on the civil service? The civil service’s overriding weakness is the great ethos of the unimportance of being right, because those who spoke truth to power are the ones whose careers have withered, and those who spoke comforting untruths to power are the ones whose careers have prospered and who have got to the top. Can he give us an assurance that the Committee, in the splendid work it is doing, will follow what other Committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee, have done by saying that we need to respect, value and continue the great contribution that the independence of the civil service has made to this country over many years?

Points of Order

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is not a matter for the Chair, but it is very good practice, which has happened, that a Member is informed of another MP going into their constituency. It is up to the Minister whether they want to give details of the visit, but it is always good practice to let the MP know, because—who knows?—they may be able to help with it, and I would have thought that it was beneficial to all for the sake of better communications. I am sure that everyone will have taken that on board.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A unique procedure was followed very recently in this House when the people at the head of the security services gave evidence to a Select Committee. Unfortunately, this was not the elevating experience that it might have been; it was one that was probably demeaning to this House. There are reports that the questions were notified to the witnesses and that they were carefully manicured questions, and there were even allegations of the answers being rehearsed. That is not in the spirit of scrutiny that this House has followed for years. We now hear reports that the same heads of security are not willing to give evidence, or have possibly been advised by Ministers not to do so, to another Select Committee—the Home Affairs Committee —where there would be proper scrutiny without pre-publication of the questions. Is this not a matter for you, as Deputy Speaker, to investigate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Absolutely not, but I know that the hon. Gentleman has a very good record of using other avenues to pursue matters, and I am sure that he will not give up just because it is not a matter for the Chair. I look forward to him continuing in other ways.

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Colvile]

Earlier this year I had to appear in the jury at the Old Bailey and so had to be away from this place for a week—[Interruption.] Some Members might think that I was there on trial, but I was actually doing my civic duty, and Members of Parliament are now required to do that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Colvile, I am not sure that quite fits with paid directorships and consultancies, so I think we will let your good duty in court go—[Interruption.] Sir Edward, I do not think we need any help from you either.

[Paul Flynn]

Again, there is a great gulf between what is happening in this Chamber and what is happening outside. I believe that it is entirely reasonable for Members who wish to go off and do other work to do so under certain circumstances, but let us get away from the idea that MPs, who get a handsome salary as far as most of our constituents are concerned, should greedily look for other earnings. Of course it is an advantage also to work as a journalist, a writer or whatever else, but when it comes to the crunch and there is a crisis, when Members know that they should be here writing to Ministers, demanding answers, making a case or meeting people, if someone comes along and says they’ll pay them 10 grand to write an article in the next 24 hours, what choice will they make? If there is no money involved, there is no real choice, as we know where our loyalties lie. We must escape from that. I appeal to Members: do they not know how low the public’s regard for us is?

New Nuclear Power

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I cannot give way any more.

The waste problem is continuing at a cost of £1.5 billion a year. We still do not have the solution and we are in the same position with the £67.5 billion. The answer used to be to dig a hole and bury it. Now, thanks to Cumbria council’s decision, quite rightly, not to build—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call David Mowat.

Jobs and Social Security

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The results that we heard about yesterday cannot be compared with anything else that ever happened. It is probably true that if the Government did nothing at all, there would be a better outcome. Can we therefore conclude that the best we can expect from the Government for the next two and a half years of their miserable existence is a long period of inactivity?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have a lot of speakers to get in, and we need shorter interventions. Otherwise, Members are going to be disappointed.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is an Opposition day and it is not up to the hon. Gentleman or the House to decide the subject of the debate. It is up to the Opposition and the debate is on the Secretary of State.

[Paul Flynn]

A person who thought that the former Defence Secretary should have been referred to the independent adviser was Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser himself. He resigned because of that.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have just made the point that the motion is about the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to a completely different subject.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will decide what is in order and what is not. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice and I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is developing his points in order to come on to that subject.

[Paul Flynn]

The point is the ministerial code and how it has been degraded by this Government and this Prime Minister. In the last Parliament and in this Parliament, the Public Administration Committee has thought that there should be an independent adviser who has the right to decide what he wants to investigate. If the Prime Minister is alleged to have broken the ministerial code, who will advise the independent adviser to investigate him? That advice is a function of the Public Administration Committee. There was no investigation of a far less serious complaint about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who failed to register an interest when he had a meal provided by a lobbyist on the excuse that that day he was eating with his private stomach, not his ministerial stomach. That was a matter for the ministerial code as it was a clear breach. The matter before us is the third breach that has taken place.

We should consider our position. We have just escaped from the screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. Our standing in the country is no higher than it was two years ago and if the Prime Minister continues to ignore a major reform—which the ministerial code was—and use it to defend his own political position, we will sink further into the perception of sleaze as seen by the country.

[Paul Flynn]

I challenge anyone on the Government Benches to cite any example of anyone claiming that that incident should have been referred under the ministerial code. I have been interested in these matters for a good decade and there was no such claim. There was a case, and it was investigated. The ministerial code was used by the previous Labour Government. It has been abused three times by this Government when strong cases have come up.

We have another reform that has not been implemented by the Government. The Prime Minister made an impassioned plea on lobbying, saying that he was going to have a new lobbying code—because, as a former lobbyist, he understood it. We do not yet have a code. The one that has been put forward is lame and weak, and it would actually weaken the system. The Government have failed in their prime task—and the prime task of all us—which is to escape from the shame of the last two years, for which all of us were responsible. Many Members left the House, with their careers in ruins, and some suffered greatly, including many who were not guilty—collateral damage. I have just concluded a biography of one former Member who lost his life because of the effect of that scandal on his health.

The shame still lies on this House. The perception outside is that politics is debased and that we do not tell the truth or obey a moral code. I appeal to all Members not to see this as one of the usual tribal votes when we go into the Lobbies—[Interruption.] I cite the contributions that I made on the Public Administration Committee in this Parliament and the last, when I was as severe a critic of my own Government as I am of the excesses of this Government. This is a matter of honour for hon. Members here today.

I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their position. This is not a question of winning a vote tonight—that does not matter. But it matters whether we stand up for the House of Commons reforms and whether we respect the reforms that have taken place. The ministerial code has been abused. Sir Alex Allan was put in place. The Committee examined him and questioned him, and unanimously—with a Conservative majority on the Committee—said that this man is not fit for this office. We communicated that to the Government and nothing was done. Elizabeth Filkin was regarded as a strong Rottweiler, and she was replaced by Sir Philip Mawer, who was regarded as not so strong, but he resigned because he was not called in to investigate what took place with Adam Werritty, which was a matter of great importance. Adam Werritty called himself an adviser, but he was paid by people outside and attended a ministerial meeting. What happened was absolution by resignation. He was allowed to resign before the country knew the full facts of what went on. What possibly happened was that his advice—his seat at the table—might have brought us closer to a war with Iran. I appeal to all hon. Members to treat this matter seriously—[Interruption.] If Members are not aware of this, it is because the investigation was carried out by Gus O’Donnell to get it over in a few days rather than having a full, legitimate investigation. That investigation was itself a breach of the ministerial code.

If we are to increase respect for ourselves in society, we have to subject every Minister to examination by someone who is genuinely independent. If the Prime Minister breaks the ministerial code, we need an independent investigator to decide, of his own volition, whether to investigate. Now we have a poodle who has been instructed by the Prime Minister—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are discussing the Secretary of State, but we are in danger of concentrating on former or present Prime Ministers. I know that the hon. Gentleman is—rightly—constructing an argument, but we need to get to the Secretary of State.

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is calling a right hon. Member a poodle parliamentary language?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It was not a named Member, but we should be careful with language because we are in danger of reheating the Chamber, and that is what we do not wish to do—because we all want to hear each other’s speeches.

[Paul Flynn]

I apologise to the harmless and beautiful dogs to which I referred for any offence caused by their association with the people involved.

Yesterday, three former special advisers to Conservative Ministers were asked whether it would have been possible, in their posts as special advisers, to communicate 500 times with anybody without their Minister knowing. They laughed. The Secretary of State’s excuse is implausible and no one can believe that what went on happened without the Minister’s consent or knowledge. This is where he falls. The Conservatives have forgotten the lesson of the Mellor scandal: a resignation delayed is a disgrace multiplied. The Minister will regret the fact that he did not resign and that he did not submit his own case to the independent adviser for examination. Hanging on in this way will not help his career. He has erred and he should go.

Iran

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

This House engaged in a war with Iraq that was based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and 179 of our brave British soldiers died along with an uncounted number of Iraqis. We remained in Afghanistan and went into Helmand on the basis of a non-existent terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from the Taliban. When we went into Helmand, two British soldiers had died in warfare and five more in other ways; having gone into Helmand, however, the figure is now 398. We are now in a position of stumbling into another war on the basis of non-existent nuclear weapons and non-existent missiles.

Some of us present when those decisions were taken vividly remember how the decision on Iraq went through this House—not on the basis of truth or evidence, but because this House was bribed, bullied and bamboozled into taking a decision that many thought was wrong. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) was one Member and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) another who opposed that decision because the evidence was not there.

We should look at the evidence before us now of the threat from a missile in Iran with a range of 6,000 miles. Members will recall that we heard of this threat three or four years ago when America wanted to set up missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russians were quite rightly angry about this, but the pretext for it was the protection of the Russians and the Poles from missiles from Iran. It was a wholly implausible threat and we have not heard much of it since, but now that an election is coming up in America, the myth has been resurrected.

I claim some pedigree in opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear technology in Iran. I raised the subject in December 1992 in parliamentary questions—I shall not bore the House with the details—to the then Minister, Michael Heseltine. At that time, we were told that it was absolutely right to hand over nuclear technology to our ally at the time—the Shah of Persia.

One Conservative Member said, “We must still punch above weight.” Why? Punching above our weight means dying beyond our responsibilities. A young soldier from south Wales died last month, but he will not be counted among the 398 dead in Afghanistan. He was shot twice there and was slightly injured in two further incidents involving improvised explosive devices, but the event that destroyed him was watching his virtually limbless best friend die in his arms. He came back broken in mind, and last month he took his life.

We have lost 398 and at least 1,000 others are also broken in mind and body because we as a House decided that we wanted to punch above our weight in the world. That was our decision, and we cannot escape from it. The present Government and previous Governments have tried to minimise the extent of the bereavement and the loss. Those who have suffered because of this, the loved ones and the bereaved, will face an awful situation in the future. When the death toll reaches 400, which it surely must, although we all regret it, all the grief will be churned up again and there will be attention to it. To get the list of the dead on to the Order Paper requires 24 early-day motions, but what we should look at is what those people will see. Many of them were consoled by the belief that their loved ones died in a noble cause—that they died preventing terrorism on the streets of Britain. What conclusion will they reach when, in a few years’ time, we hand over the government of Afghanistan to the very people whom we said we were fighting against, to the very same threat? We will be handing it back to the Taliban.

The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) was absolutely right. The effect of our intervention in Iraq was to replace one rotten, cruel, oppressive regime with another rotten, cruel, oppressive regime, and the result in Afghanistan will be the same. A bad regime, the Taliban, will go out, and we will replace it with what? With the Taliban again. It seems extraordinary that we have to behave as though we were still in the 19th century and that Britannia still rules the waves. We do not have to take on these situations. We do not have to be the Little Sir Echo to American policy.

There is an unsolved riddle in the House about how we have been represented. There was an investigation of the conduct of the last Defence Secretary that was alleged to constitute a breach of the ministerial code, but the investigation itself constituted a breach of the ministerial code because it was not carried out by the sole enforcer of that code, Sir Philip Mawer. He has resigned within the last couple of months and someone else has been put in his place. There is great concern that the person involved in this matter, Adam Werritty, who was the adviser to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to return to the subject of Iran. I am sure that that is where he is heading next.

[Paul Flynn]

This is precisely about Iran, because it has been claimed that Adam Werritty and the former Secretary of State were in meetings with Israelis—indeed, it is a proven fact that at least five meetings took place—and that the subject of those meetings was Iran. That has been reported in many of our national newspapers. However, the investigation has yet to be carried out. We have seen a brief investigation by a civil servant who was not entitled to carry it out, and we have seen the resignation of the person who is the sole enforcer and who told a Select Committee that he believed that he, not Gus O’Donnell, should have conducted the investigation.

We have yet to find out what on earth was going on. Did we have a Secretary of State who was conducting his own foreign policy on Iran and perhaps bringing us closer to war? The Select Committee has yet to finish its report, but a fortnight ago I asked Philip Mawer’s successor, “If the Committee decides that you are not a fit person to take on this job”—because he has not shown the robust independence that is necessary to the job—“what will you do?” He said that he would relinquish his position. That has yet to be decided.

Finally, let me say that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay deserves great praise for introducing the debate. He has already succeeded—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Mr Edward Leigh.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I do not think it is fair to blame the monarch for the way in which the measures were rushed into the House. Normally, if there is a change to business, a business statement is made to the House as early as possible; I cannot remember one being made at all in this case. Most hon. Members had other pressing business on that day, and only those who were here in the morning had any idea that the measures were going ahead.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, but we have just decided on the process that we are following; we now have to stick with where we are.

Sovereign Grant Bill (Allocation of Time)

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

May I raise an issue in support of the points that many people have made about the role of the monarchy outside the well-known ceremonial role—the crucial role of Head of State? This matter gets little or no attention. The Conservative historian, Robert Rhodes James, a former colleague of ours, gave a lecture in Cambridge, which was largely ignored, about a time when the role of the monarchy might have been absolutely crucial in our history. It was at the time when the skids were under Margaret Thatcher and everyone wanted her to go and tearful members of the Cabinet were coming to No. 10 Downing Street asking her to go. Robert Rhodes James, who was a very distinguished and respected Member of the House at that time, said that the Conservative party suddenly became terrified because there was a possibility that Mrs Thatcher might call a general election and she could not have been stopped by the Conservative party, the Cabinet or the House of Commons.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are talking about the allocation of time. I know that history is part of time but I am not sure it is relevant to the Bill.

[Paul Flynn]

This point is crucial to why we need extra time. This issue is virtually unknown, but it is important because the only person who could then have stopped Margaret Thatcher from acting in her own interests rather than in the national interests, as she might well have been elected, was the Queen. This is a question about the personality of the monarch, because the strong personality of the monarch might have been vital then. This matter is so important that we should have a greater allocation of time and a full debate.

Points of Order

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Two worrying claims have been made about our troops in Afghanistan. One of those was today’s report from the National Audit Office, which suggests that two out of three deliveries of vital equipment are not arriving in time. Another claim made is that bullet-proof vests are not being supplied, in order to provide funds for the alternative vote referendum. Have you news of any statement to the House that can point out the seriousness of the first claim and the stupidity of the second?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

There is no indication of such a statement being made. I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is not a point of order, but it has certainly gone on the record, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Defence will have taken notice.

UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan

Debate between Paul Flynn and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

No, I cannot, because I have given way twice.

If we want evidence that the Government are in denial, we should recall the attempt to stop the reading of the names at Prime Minister’s Question Time, when the House is well attended and the media attention is on us. This was shifted and the names were read twice, once on a Monday and once on a Thursday. When the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary visited Afghanistan to demonstrate our strength, they proved our weakness. When they came back to the Dispatch Box and gave their reports to the House, they did not mention the only important thing that happened on their mission, which was that they were unable to fulfil their engagements. They were supposed to visit three sites, but they were unable to visit the principal one because of the strength of the Taliban. However, to admit that, and thus to tell the truth at the Dispatch Box about the fact that their trip exposed our vulnerability and our inability to guarantee the safety of our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, would have been to admit that the situation is getting worse by the day. This has been going on for a long time, and to pretend otherwise is nonsense.

There is a welcome sense within this House—I am not making any point about a date on which to withdraw—that we know that we are going to withdraw. An exit strategy is in place and that changes the mindset. Nobody will talk any longer about continuing for 30 years, or about conquering the Taliban or the people of Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan know that we are getting out. The Parliaments in Holland and Canada debated this issue—they had the opportunity to do so and to vote on it before we did—and they decided to bring their troops out. The opinion of our nation is the same: 70% of the country wants to see the troops home by Christmas. That cannot happen, but we need to get them home in a way that is going to guarantee as much peace as possible for the Afghans in the future. We have to choose whether we have a Dien Bien Phu exit or a Saigon exit—that was an exit prompted by the disgust of the population at the body bags coming home. Such an exit would be carried out in panic and would leave the Afghans at the greatest possible peril. We may be able to reach some agreement with these various groups. They are not saints and it will be very difficult to get any stable set-up, but that must happen and we know that we are going to do it in the near future—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.