Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she knows Wales extremely well. Airbus and Toyota are key parts of the north-east Wales economy, and investment in those plants, and the success in terms of the efficiency of those plants, means that they are well-placed to take advantage of the opportunities that will come our way once we leave the EU. All employees at those plants are committed to working hard to ensure that their employers have a healthy future after we leave the European Union, but that success is based on ensuring that they are also competitive in the world market.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Some 90% of Welsh red meat is sold in the EU. That market is already being destroyed by meat from Romania and Spain. If Brexit happens after the confirmation referendum that we might have following the advisory referendum, the only remedy that has been suggested is to send more Welsh lamb abroad on the hoof rather than on the hook. Is the Minister happy with that, and will Brexit mean more suffering for sentient animals?

[Guto Bebb]

The whole House will be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to being the defender of Welsh farmers, which would be a first for the Welsh farming community. The Welsh farming community is proud of its animal welfare standards. It is proud of the fact that Wales has the best lamb and beef available in all parts of the EU, and it will be successful, regardless of any scare stories peddled by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman is well known for his support for S4C and the Welsh language, but I have stated very clearly that this Department is committed to ensuring that that manifesto commitment is delivered. More importantly, we need a long-term agreement on the future of S4C, and the whole point of this review is to ensure that S4C not only has a decent financial situation for this year, but is on a strong footing for the future.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

This institution has spent four centuries disrespecting the Welsh language, which existed and was a sophisticated literary language for 1,000 years before English existed, so we pay tribute to the late Wyn Roberts and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for this step forward now: “O bydded i’r hen iaith barhau.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who knows the agricultural sector in north Wales and Cheshire extremely well, and who understands the cross-border nature of much farming in Wales. The key point is that we must be aware that we have a great product to offer the rest of the world. It is essential that we go out and sell that product, which is why the Wales Office is forging such a close relationship with the Secretary of State for International Trade. It is essential that we grow the markets for Welsh products, rather than be defensive about the issue.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is this not a wonderful opportunity to reform agricultural subsidies to decouple Wales from the system in England that rewards people for owning land and not, as they are rewarded in Wales, for producing food? Should we not end the system of paying millionaires and billionaires up to £1 million each a year, while Welsh farmers have to struggle with small subsidies? Can we have Welsh policies for Welsh farmers?

[Guto Bebb]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the aim of the Government is to have a farming policy that is right for the UK and right for Wales. He was much more positive about our farming industry in a recent Westminster Hall debate and I agree with the comments he made in that debate. It is essential that we support the farming industry in Wales, while moving forward following our exit from the European Union.

Leaving the EU: Infrastructure in Wales

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb]

I sincerely hope it would not be a like-it-or-lump-it strategy, because that would not be proper engagement. Proper engagement means listening to the arguments being made by the devolved authorities and taking their views into account. It is clear that a decision will have to be made on a UK basis. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is not arguing that we should have different settlements for different parts of the UK in relation to exiting the European Union.

We entered the European Union as a United Kingdom and I suspect we will leave as a United Kingdom, but it is imperative in that debate that we take on board the arguments being made by the devolved Administrations. It is important to highlight that we, as a Government, have set up Joint Ministerial Committees to ensure that those discussions happen on a Minister-to-Minister basis. I have been part of those discussions, as a representative of the Wales Office. So this is not a case of attempting a Westminster fix that ignores the views of the devolved Administrations; it is a genuine attempt to take on board the concerns of those Administrations, to ensure that we come up with an approach that reflects the complexities of the United Kingdom.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the Minister seriously believe that the problems post-Brexit in the home countries will be the same as the problems in England? A red, white and blue Brexit is an England-centric one. The problems in Wales and Scotland, and certainly in Northern Ireland, are unique to those countries and we need Brexit solutions that are tailor-made for the four home countries.

[Guto Bebb]

I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s comments, because I do not think he would argue that every single part of England has the same issues. The issues in Cornwall are very different to those in London; indeed, there is a devolved administration in London. Also, we are seeing a devolution process in the north of England and the issues facing the north of England will be very different from those in the midlands. I suspect that the Government have a responsibility to listen to arguments being made by all parts of the country. We are a Government who are listening on this issue.

I go back to the structures that have been put in place. Those structures are working. I have attended meetings with Ministers from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, such meetings are not currently possible, and that is a regret, but they have been constructive and for a purpose. I can assure hon. Members that views about the priorities are expressed very strongly in all parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked whether the engagement is serious, and I argue that it is. Certainly the meetings I have attended have been robust but very worth while.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

My understanding is that the work is progressing well. Again, I highlight the contrast between the situation under this Government and the lack of investment in any railway infrastructure between 1997 and 2010.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

What is the Minister going to do with preposterous suggestion that the priorities for future support for farmers in Wales should be decided on the basis of the UK, where there are many millionaire and billionaire farmers, rather than on the basis of Wales, where there are small farmers? Will he stand up for Welsh priorities, made in Wales for Welsh small farmers?

[Guto Bebb]

I was at the winter fair yesterday in discussions with farming unions and other interested parties in relation to the Welsh agricultural sector. The agricultural sector in Wales wants a settlement that will be good for the sector in Wales and good for the UK. We know that we can produce the best food in all the world, and we need to ensure that we have opportunities to sell it not only to the rest of the European Union but on a global basis. We are confident we can do that with support from this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to encourage increased tourism to Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his time as shadow Secretary of State and thank him for his contribution at the Dispatch Box in that role.

As the House will know, tourism is vital to delivering economic growth in Wales. It has been a great year for inbound tourism in the UK and in Wales, with day visits increasing by 24% in the last 12 months.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the Minister pay tribute to the magnificent tourist attractions in Newport—Tredegar House, the wetlands, Celtic Manor, and the splendid Roman baths and amphitheatre—all of which increased tourist numbers last year by up to 70%? Will he confirm that visitors to all parts of Wales always praise the warmth of our hospitality?

Wales Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

Yes, it is arbitrary. I know my hon. Friend has connections and would like to see more jobs created in this area, as would we all. This is, in fact, the means through which the greatest number of jobs would be created. The 350 MW limit is meaningless. The Minister mentions the Silk commission, but that was a long time ago—before we realised that there was a huge question mark over Hinkley. We will not know for a fortnight what will go ahead there, but this Bill is a great opportunity for us in Wales. Amendments 70 to 82, which we tabled, offer a marvellous chance to get energy in Wales. Unlike the curse of energy in the past, when we suffered the dirt, degradation and pollution of the coal industry, here we have a source of energy that is benign, clean, green, Welsh and eternal. What could be better than that?

It was disappointing to hear the Minister’s response to our new clause 1, which deals with marine issues. Its purpose is to promote effective consultation and communication between the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Welsh Government in respect of devolved fisheries and marine matters. The new clause would put Wales on the same footing as Scotland. It is increasingly irritating to hear from the Government that what is right for Scotland is never right for Wales. Wales always seems to come second when it comes to doling out these grudged gifts of power from this excessively and neurotically power-attentive Government. For goodness’ sake, let go, and let Wales have at least what Scotland has. What on earth is wrong with that?

Powers in respect of fisheries, marine planning, inshore marine licensing and conservation are already devolved. The Wales Bill makes further provision for ports to be devolved, which is very welcome; for devolution in respect of marine licensing; for conservation to be extended to the offshore area; and for consenting over marine energy projects. That is moving in the right direction, but consultation on the MCA’s priorities would promote joined-up, cross-Government engagement at an early stage on marine and fisheries issues. The new clause is designed to promote consultation and information sharing on matters of mutual interest, which could only benefit the public as well as commercial and conservation areas. It is an entirely sensible and common-sense measure which should be accepted by the Government.

We warmly support new clause 6 on air passenger duty, tabled by Plaid Cymru Members, and will do so if it is pressed to a Division. It seems extraordinary for a Welsh Minister to talk about air travel when we know that the disposition of the airports works in a circle. At the centre of the circle are Heathrow and Gatwick, where all the traffic goes. As we move further from those hubs out to the periphery, the problems get worse. Our airport, Cardiff, is on the periphery of the periphery, so it deserves special treatment—just as the Scottish airports do. For the same reason, we deserve special impetus to make sure that we can compete. We cannot compete on an equal basis at the moment because of the geography involved. The traffic flows towards the centre—towards London and towards Bristol.

[Guto Bebb]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, if Cardiff airport is facing handicaps to such an extent, it is one of the fastest-growing airports of the past 12 months?

[Paul Flynn]

That is because of the wisdom of the socialist Welsh Government in taking it over—nationalising it. I am glad that the Minister draws attention to that fact—this triumph of practical socialism, which is turning out to be a success, even without the level playing field and level flying field that we need. Plaid Cymru has tabled this new clause, and we believe that devolving airport duty would allow Welsh airports to compete on a fair basis with the others. We need only to look at the geography. That tells us that the airports at Prestwick and Cardiff are disadvantaged because of the whole nature of flying and the magnetic attraction to the hubs around which the population is distributed. This measure will have to happen at some time in the future. We should acknowledge the success of the Welsh Government’s action over Cardiff airport.

On keeping the devolution of policing under review, the Minister prayed in aid the four police and crime commissioners in Wales. What he did not mention was the fact that those four PCCs are agreed on the need for the control of policing to go to the Welsh Assembly. Our new clause 11 requires the Secretary of State for Wales and his Ministers to

“keep the functioning and operation of policing in Wales under review”.

It is not asking much to suggest that we should look at it every year. This issue has been around for a long time.

Having spent a number of years sitting on the Home Affairs Committee, I would like to see some police forces kept at some distance from the Welsh police forces. I refer to some in Yorkshire and the Met, about which I have some misgivings relating to incidents involving some of my constituents and indeed constituents of my hon. Friends. I believe that there is a tradition of ethical policing in Wales that has its own values and it would be beneficial to keep possibilities in place and under review. We should keep the light shining in the distance as we move towards it.

Wales Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Sir Alan.

Clause 22, alongside detailed technical provisions in part 2 of schedule 5, devolves onshore petroleum licensing in Wales to Welsh Ministers, fulfilling the St David’s Day commitment. Clause 23 is necessary to facilitate a smooth transfer of existing onshore licences. Clause 24 transfers to Welsh Ministers the regulation-making powers in the Infrastructure Act 2015 with respect to the right to use deep-level land below 300 metres for the purpose of exploiting onshore petroleum.

The St David’s day agreement stated that responsibility for speed limits in Wales should be devolved. It also committed the Government to consider the Smith agreement, to determine which recommendations for Scotland should also apply to Wales. As a result of this work, powers over traffic signs, including pedestrian crossings, will also be devolved. Clause 25 and section E1 of schedule 1 devolve these powers by reserving only powers relating to the exemption of vehicles from speed limits and certain traffic signs—for example, emergency vehicles attending incidents.

Together, the clause and the schedule have the effect of devolving to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers legislative and executive competence in respect of substantially all the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 that concern speed limits and traffic signs. This means the Assembly will be able to legislate in respect of substantially all aspects of speed limits and traffic signs on all roads in Wales.

Clause 26 fulfils a St David’s day commitment and implements a Silk commission recommendation to devolve the registration of local bus services, including the relevant functions of the traffic commissioner. Devolution of bus registration is achieved by the matter not being listed as a reserved matter in schedule 7A. Clause 26 gives effect to the devolution of the relevant traffic commissioner functions to Welsh Ministers. Clause 27 also fulfils a St David’s day commitment and a Silk commission recommendation by devolving the regulation of taxi and private hire vehicle services in Wales to Welsh Ministers.

This complements the devolution of legislative competence to the Assembly for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in new schedule 7A. Taxi and PHV services are currently licensed by local authorities under legislation that covers England and Wales outside London. Local licensing authorities set their own policies and standards. I therefore support these clauses standing part of the Bill.

[Paul Flynn]

These considerable and weighty clauses will bring significant benefits to the people of Wales. We are grateful for the improvements that have taken place as a result of the Government accepting the criticisms made of the draft Bill. Real progress is being made.

The main issues I wish to raise with this group of amendments involve energy, because there is a great opportunity for Wales to become a powerhouse for energy for the whole United Kingdom. For too long, we have neglected the vast energy of the tide that sweeps around the Welsh coast at different times of the day, providing pulses of energy that could be coupled with demand-responsive schemes such as pumped storage schemes in order to give completely demand-responsive electricity not only cleanly, but by providing renewable power in an entirely predictable way—the tide will always come in.

We have made huge strides in Wales on hydro schemes in Rheidol, Ffestiniog and Dinorwig. The possibility of using the topography of Wales to produce energy has been long neglected. When we look at the problems of the Port Talbot steelworks, we need to realise that washing along the shore of those steelworks is the highest rise and fall of tide in the world. They are in trouble because their energy is so expensive, yet a source of energy is available on their doorstep—free, British, eternal and absolutely predictable.

Amendments 130 to 132 deal with renewable energy schemes. These Welsh Government amendments would create a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before establishing or amending a renewable energy incentive scheme in Wales. As drafted, the clause excludes the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult in relation to the creation of a levy to fund an incentive scheme.

The obligation merely to consult is insufficient in respect of this important matter. The Energy Act 2013 provides that the Secretary of State must consult Welsh Ministers before making regulations in relation to contracts for difference. This is a fairly fresh concept, but it has been used widely by this Government and the previous one. Interested parties should also be consulted before a renewables obligation closure order is issued. When the UK Government announced the early closure of the renewables obligation scheme for onshore wind in 2015, there was no prior consultation with Welsh Ministers. We therefore think it essential that, as part of establishing an appropriate devolution settlement for energy, the requirement is put on a firmer and clearer footing. The amendment therefore provides that the Welsh Ministers’ agreement must be sought in relation to renewable energy incentive schemes in Wales either proposed or, in the case of existing schemes, proposed for amendment.

We further propose the omission of clause 46(3), which inappropriately limits the scope of the responsibility of the Secretary of State to engage constructively with Welsh Ministers. We see no reason, and none is offered in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, why that engagement should not extend to the consideration of matters relating to levies to fund renewable energy incentive schemes.

Amendments 144 and 147 relate to clause 51. Clause 51 provides the Secretary of State with order-making powers to make consequential provision following the enactment of the Wales Bill. This includes powers to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify primary or secondary legislation as he considers appropriate. Affirmative procedure in both Houses is provided for where the amendment or repeal of primary legislation is envisaged in any such order. There is, however, no provision for Assembly approval of a draft order that would repeal or modify Assembly legislation. Furthermore, as the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State could propose orders making modifications to the Acts of Parliament underpinning the Welsh devolution settlement without requiring the Assembly’s consent, although parliamentary consent would be needed. Even if such modifications were contained in a parliamentary Bill, the Assembly’s consent would be required. This is wrong in principle. If the Secretary of State wishes to take powers by order to make amendments, up to and including repeal, to Assembly legislation, that should be possible only with the consent of the Assembly itself. If orders are proposed that would make changes to the parliamentary legislation establishing the Welsh devolution settlement, they, too, should require Assembly consent before they can be made. The Welsh Government amendments would give effect to those important principles.

I welcome the agreement in this House across all parties. Plaid Cymru introduced a slightly tribal note by attacking Labour for not going to the same lengths that it has gone to in some of its amendments, but I think Labour has taken a pragmatic view. Where the Government made it clear they are not going to change their minds, we have tried to introduce amendments that are halfway between the Opposition and Government positions, and which might be acceptable to the Government. It should not be concluded from that that we have shown any lack of enthusiasm for the process of devolution.

Plaid Cymru’s amendment 74 relates to energy limits. The Welsh Government would have no powers over schemes above 350 MW. That is a very low level. It would include the tidal lagoon in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), but it would not include the two tidal lagoons planned for either side—the Cardiff side and the Newport side—of the River Usk. The two schemes have enormous possibilities to produce huge amounts of electricity, particularly if they are linked with pumped storage schemes in the valleys. If the pulse of electricity comes in the early hours of the morning when it is not required, the energy can be used to pump the water up to the adjacent hills very close to the shore in Newport, and then drawn down to produce electricity throughout the day. This is a form of energy production that we have long, long neglected. We have ignored the power of the tide and we have used other, polluting forms of energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

It should be stated that a former Secretary of State for Wales and former leader of this party had long argued that there was a need to look at a higher limit. It is fair to say that the process of devolution is an ongoing one, and it is highly unreasonable to criticise the fact that we are moving towards a situation where very large developments of hydro power in north Wales could be decided upon in Cardiff.

[Paul Flynn]

As the process is ongoing, do we not have a responsibility to catch up with information that was not available to the Silk commission? I do not think that the Newport barrage and Cardiff barrage were envisaged at that time. How does it make sense for the Welsh Government to have control over the Swansea lagoon, but not over the Newport and Cardiff lagoons?

[Guto Bebb]

I am very sympathetic to the concept of tidal lagoons, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a review is being undertaken at this time and I would not want to prejudge it. It is being undertaken by Charles Hendry, who is well respected across this House.

Clause 37 allows Welsh Ministers to make declarations extinguishing public rights of navigation, so as to ensure safety out to the seaward limits of the territorial sea in relation to generating stations up to 350MW. Clause 38 aligns, in a single authority, the ability to consent both to a generating station itself and the associated overhead line which would connect that station to the transmission system. It does so by removing consenting applicable requirements under either the Electricity Act 1989 or the Planning Act 2008 for certain associated overhead lines with a transmission capacity of up to 132kV necessary for connecting generating stations of up to 350MW capacity. This is an attempt to generate a one-stop shop for energy opportunities of that size in Wales. The Silk commission rightly identified that a one-stop shop should be developed, and the Bill tries to deliver that in a Welsh context.

Government amendments 47 to 49 correct an inadvertent constraint in the current drafting of clause 38 by removing the presumption that Welsh Ministers are the devolved consenting authority.

On clause 39, the Planning Act 2008 introduced the concept of “associated development”—development that the Secretary of State could consent to as part of the development consent orders which underpin and facilitate major development projects. The ability to grant associated development allows for more of the complete projects to be delivered within a single consent, to try to make the situation easier for developers. In Wales, the benefit of this approach has hitherto been restricted only to certain activities around the construction of underground gas storage facilities. Clause 39 amends relevant definitions in the Planning Act 2008 to extend the scope of associated development in Wales to include activities accompanying generating projects above 350 MW and larger overhead lines connections of 132 kV. Again, it fulfils a St David’s day commitment and implements a Silk commission recommendation.

I think it is fair to say that amendments 158 to 160, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), seek to re-open matters which have already been debated in the context of the Energy Act 2016. That Act delivered the Government’s manifesto commitment to give local people the final say on wind farm applications. It also ensured that in Wales it is for the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to decide how decisions are taken. I see no basis for rowing back from that position now, but I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that the Welsh Government should ensure that local people in Wales have the final say on these matters.

In our discussion of the Bill, we have talked about the importance of financial accountability, but this is also a case of political accountability. In my constituency, Aberconwy, we had the development of the Gwynt y Môr wind farm. I think I am right in saying that every single councillor in the Conwy local authority area voted against the development, but it was imposed by diktat by the then Energy Secretary. The important point is that the changes and the power given to local communities as a result of Acts passed by the coalition Government were a direct response to that political need for change. If the Assembly Government are guilty of taking powers into their own hands, there is political accountability there which needs to be challenged and needs to be part of the political discourse in Wales.

The Energy Act has ended subsidy for new onshore wind. If an onshore wind project does not already have planning permission, it is not going to be eligible for subsidy under the renewables obligation. In all the circumstances, therefore, the amendment should not be pressed to a vote.

Clauses 40 and 41 devolve further powers to Welsh Ministers in respect of equal opportunities. The powers follow as closely as possible the approach adopted in Scotland, but the two approaches are not identical. Clause 40 covers the operation of the public sector equalities duty. It removes the requirement in section 152 of the Equality Act 2010 that the Welsh Ministers consult a Minister of the Crown prior to making an order amending the list of Welsh public authorities that are subject to the duty, replacing it with a requirement to inform.

Clause 41 provides for the commencement and implementation of part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in Wales. Part 1 imposes a duty on certain public bodies to have due regard to socio-economic considerations when making strategic decisions. Clause 41 allows the Welsh Ministers to bring part 1 into force in Wales on a date of their choosing. It also enables Welsh Ministers to amend the 2010 Act to add or remove relevant authorities that are to be subject to the duty, without first consulting a Minister of the Crown.

Clauses 42 and 43 extend Welsh Ministers’ existing responsibilities for marine licensing and marine conservation in the Welsh inshore region to the Welsh offshore region. The clauses fulfil St David’s day commitments and implement recommendations in the Silk commission’s second report.

Clause 44 enables the Secretary of State to intervene on legislation or Executive activities where she has reasonable grounds to believe that these might have a serious adverse impact on sewerage in England. As part of this Bill, legislative competence for sewerage will be devolved, subject to the matters set out in C15 of new schedule 7A. These powers of intervention are similar to those already held by the Secretary of State in relation to water. They may be used where an Act of the Assembly, or the exercise, or failure to exercise, a relevant function might have a serious adverse impact on sewerage services and systems in England.

Amendments 81,125 and 126, tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon, seek to take forward the recommendations of the Silk commission in relation to water and sewerage. The Silk report recognised that water and sewerage devolution is complex and that further work to consider the practical implications was needed. The Government set up the Joint Governments Programme Board with the Welsh Government to look at these issues and report on the likely effects that implementing the commission’s recommendations would have on the efficient delivery of water and sewerage services, consumers and the water undertakers themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained earlier, that work has concluded and the Government are considering the evidence before deciding whether and how the recommendations will be taken forward. We will consider carefully the interests of customers and businesses on both sides of the border before reaching that decision. It should be stressed that this issue is under consideration.

Wales Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In my book, which begins with a dramatis personae, I awarded Welsh politicians a number of pompoms for being poodle-ish or flames for being dragon-like. I think he emerged with no pompoms and five flames, which was the top award. His point is absolutely right.

During the pre-legislative scrutiny, it became clear that the question of the jurisdiction was a fundamental one that had to be addressed in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnyddp said, the Plaid Cymru amendment adopts the approach in the Welsh Government’s alternative Bill. That is fine—we agree with that—but we are proposing a compromise that would address the issue in a more consensual way. That is the spirit in which we approach consideration of the Bill. In response to the intervention from the Secretary of State, I must say that I welcome the concept of working with the Welsh Assembly. I know that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Welsh Assembly will be meeting throughout August to consider the Bill under our former colleague Huw Irranca-Davies. I am sure that it will have a great deal to contribute, and I hope that its suggestions will meet with an open door.

There is common ground among legal and constitutional experts that the current arrangements are not sustainable. The challenges can only grow as the Welsh statute book develops further in the fifth Assembly term—“the Welsh statute book” has a nice ring to it. We have not yet risen to the heights of cyfraith Hywel Dda and the days in the 10th century when Wales led Europe with progressive legislation. There was a law that said if a starving person had gone to three villages without being fed, he or she was entitled to steal without risk of prosecution. They had wonderful rules on the rights of women that were far in advance of anywhere else and they had practically no capital punishment. Eight hundred years later, England had 220 crimes for which people could be punished with death, including stealing from a rabbit warren and cutting down a tree. So we are building on the shoulders of the giants of the 10th century and Hywel Dda. We are a long way from it, but this is another step towards that progress.

The joint jurisdiction was based on the premise that there was a common body of law across England and Wales with a single set of administrative arrangements. That premise worked for the centuries following the Acts of Union but is now out of date. In essence, that premise is inconsistent with legislative devolution; it is simply impossible to argue for retention of the joint jurisdiction when the criminal and private law in England and Wales will increasingly diverge as a result of Assembly legislation. The starting point is that there must be robust joint arrangements between the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers to work through the issues and identify solutions, and the UK Government’s proposed official working group might add some value. In his intervention, the Secretary of State said that an invitation had been sent to the Welsh Government. I do not know about that, but we would like to see that joint working. It is certainly the desire of the Welsh Government.

Our amendments would achieve three things. First, there would be a duty on the Lord Chancellor and Welsh Ministers to keep the operation of the justice system under review, including the jurisdiction question. Secondly, they would be able to appoint an expert panel to advise them, which could be an invaluable source of legal expertise to focus on the practical issues. Thirdly, the work would have to be transparent and sustained, with an annual report laid before the National Assembly and Parliament.

The Secretary of State, like his predecessor, wants the Bill to offer a lasting settlement, and so do we, but that will not happen unless they put forward a credible and serious process for reforming the joint jurisdiction. There is a major gap in the Bill as it stands. Amendment 7 is proposed as a constructive solution that deserves cross-party support and we hope to press it to a Division.

Clause 2 provides statutory underpinning for the Sewel convention. Under our constitution, both Parliament and the Assembly can legislate for Wales on devolved matters, so it is important that there be a clear understanding between the two legislatures as to which will be the principal legislature on these matters. The convention normally resolves that issue in favour of the Assembly. Amendments 23 and 24 address that issue further. The convention also requires that if Parliament proposes to amend the legislative competence of the Assembly, that too should require the Assembly’s formal consent.

To be fair to the UK Government, they have always acknowledged that the Bill will require the Assembly’s consent if it is to proceed to Royal Assent. This is a matter not of controversy but of common sense and consensus between the parties. This aspect of the convention, however, is only set out in rather obscure terms in a devolution guidance note for civil servants. As drafted, clause 2 makes no reference to this aspect of the convention at all, so it is an incomplete statement of the real position. Clarity would be appreciated.

Amendment 4 is designed to fill that gap. It would provide a comprehensive statement of the circumstances when Assembly consent is required for parliamentary legislation. In particular, it would make it clear in the Bill that Assembly consent is required when a parliamentary Bill proposes changes to the Assembly’s legislative competence. I note that amendment 25 is broadly to the same effect. This is an important element in the Welsh devolution settlement, so clarity is required; it should not depend on what is written in devolution guidance note. I urge the Government to accept these reasonable and constructive amendments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)]

I join hon. Members in welcoming the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) to their places on the Front Bench. I fear that I have followed the hon. Gentleman’s political career for more than 40 years, which makes me feel very old. When he was the candidate in Denbigh during the 1974 general election, my father was the election agent for Ieuan Wyn Jones, who stood for Plaid Cymru. The hon. Gentleman clearly made a huge impression on my father, who followed his career avidly, but I am surprised that as a resident of Llansannan he did not appreciate the beauty and importance of the agricultural community in the way that he perhaps should have. When my wife had a bookshop, we recommended “Dragons led by Poodles” to many of our customers. It was one of our bestsellers in the year in question, so he undoubtedly contributed to my coffers then.

On behalf of myself and the Secretary of State, may I also thank the hon. Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for their constructive engagement on the Bill prior to the change of guard on the Opposition Front Bench? The Bill has been brought forward in a measured way, and we have attempted at all times to have a constructive engagement with all Opposition parties. The constructive engagement we had with the hon. Members for Llanelli and for Clwyd South was particularly appreciated.

I need to go through the amendments in some detail to provide reassurance where necessary and to explain the Government’s position on them. Let me deal first with amendment 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). This is clearly an attempt to change the place where new part 2A is inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006. The new part inserted by clause 1 enshrines the permanence of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government and recognises the body of Welsh law. Amendment 8, which was tabled by the Opposition, would change the title of new part 2A, making it broader in scope. Amendments 17 and 8 are consequential amendments, so I shall explain the Government’s position on them when I speak to other amendments.

Amendments 18 to 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, are designed to insert into the Government of Wales Act 2006 separate statements on the permanence of the National Assembly for Wales and of the Welsh Government. The amendments rightly recognise the importance of new part 2A in confirming without any doubt in law what is widely understood—that the National Assembly and the Welsh Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and his work as Chairman of the Welsh Select Committee. I pay tribute, too, to his speech in which he highlighted the permanence of the Welsh Assembly in the UK’s constitutional arrangements. I accept his argument that a majority is a majority in a democratic vote. My mother-in-law argued on Sunday that we should try to avoid the result of the EU referendum, highlighting the fact that it was a very small majority on a very small turnout, whereupon I said to her that she was of the view that the 50.3% of the people of Wales who voted for the establishment of the Welsh Assembly should be respected. I stood by the democratic principle that a majority is a majority, but it was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth being so clear in his view that the Assembly is part and parcel of the UK’s constitutional arrangements.

It is fair to say that a great deal of consideration has been given to the content of this clause and its place in the 2006 Act, not only in the context of the draft Wales Bill, published last October, but in terms of the read-across from the Scotland Act 2016. As in the context of Scotland, I am keen to see this commitment expressed in a single clause to reflect the fact that the Assembly and the Welsh Government belong together as a part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. I would, however, like to give further consideration to the most appropriate place to insert new section 92A in the Government of Wales Act 2006.

I shall deal next with amendments 5, 7, 9 and 10, which amend new clause 92B on the recognition of Welsh law. In its second report, published in March 2014, the Silk commission recommended that there

“should be further administrative devolution in the court system”,

and it specifically provided for devolution in respect of the various divisions of the High Court, which should sit in Wales on a regular basis to hear cases—other than highly specialist cases—that arise in Wales. The commission stated that a High Court office should be established in Wales to co-ordinate High Court sittings in Wales; that the divisions of the Court of Appeal should continue to sit in Wales on a regular basis to hear cases that arise in Wales; and that High Court and Court of Appeal judges should be allocated to sit in Wales only if they satisfy the Lord Chief Justice that they understand the distinct requirements of Wales.

I am pleased to be able to state clearly from the Dispatch Box that many of the recommendations relating to administrative devolution in fact reflect the current position in Wales: the senior courts already sit in Wales; the administration of Welsh courts is overseen by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service Wales; and court sittings are co-ordinated locally.

Macur Review of Historical Child Abuse

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb]

Yes, I will touch on that issue, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham. It is simply not correct that only Government Ministers have seen the uncorrected report. It might be correct that the only politicians who have seen the report are Government politicians but it is not only the Government who have seen it. Clearly, an unredacted copy has been sent to the Goddard review, Operation Pallial, Operation Orion and Operation Hydrant.

It is simply not correct to say that the only people who have seen an unredacted version of the report are Government Ministers. If the argument is that we should provide that information to all elected politicians but not to the general public, it is a completely different argument. Given the way in which politicians are viewed, I am not sure that would contribute any further to the trust that the hon. Member for Wrexham seeks.

On the methodology, I have tried to explain why the redactions were undertaken. The two letters that we received have been published. I will write to the Children’s Commissioner for Wales highlighting again the reasons for the redactions. I am not claiming that the response will satisfy all people’s concerns, but it is clear that the Wales Office and the Government ensured that the advice that was provided was published at the same time as the report. We have provided the explanation for the methodology and we will provide further explanations.

I understand that the hon. Members for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd highlighted concerns but I think that those have been addressed. If they need to be addressed in further detail, I hope that our letter to the Children’s Commissioner for Wales will provide that. I am more than happy to respond to any questions received.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the Minister know that there is a precedent for revealing to Members of Parliament reports that are entirely secret? The report that I saw as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—the Operation Tiberius report—was an extraordinary document that named many people including criminals and police, who worked together through the freemasonry movement. We inspected that report under strict terms of security. We were not allowed to take our phones in. We were watched the whole time and we were not allowed to take any notes. There is a precedent for allowing Members of Parliament to see the unredacted report.

[Guto Bebb]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point but hon. Members have made arguments that the redactions are damaging public confidence. I am unsure how the idea he offers would contribute to solving the issue of public confidence because a very limited amount of people in the political sphere would be responding. A couple of other questions were asked by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd—

Jobs and Social Security

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

Indeed, and that example should be replicated in other parts of the country, where partnership working can make a difference.

Despite a 192% increase in youth unemployment in my constituency of Aberconwy during the last six years of the Labour Government, we have seen a 21% reduction in youth unemployment since this coalition came into play. Twenty-one per cent is not enough—the fact that I still have young people not working in my constituency is unacceptable—but we should recognise the success in getting young people back into employment. Every young person who is not claiming unemployment benefit or lying around doing nothing is a success story as far as I am concerned. When Labour Members talk about youth unemployment, it is important that they consider their performance in government.

However, I suspect that this debate is more about the Work programme than about the general context. I have talked about the general context, but it is important to bear in mind that the Work programme is the Department’s flagship programme, and a lot rests on its success. My concern is that this debate is premature, because it is difficult to look at a long-term programme—which is looking at paying people based on their performance over the long term, not the short term—and say after a year that it is failing. Even going on the figures that came out yesterday, it looks as though the programme is doing exactly as it was supposed to be doing. They show that 56% of Work programme starters in June 2011 are no longer on benefit, that 30% of them have been off benefit for 15 weeks and that 19% have been off benefit for 26 weeks.

[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?

Israel

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb]

I am grateful for that intervention from my right hon. Friend, who is a Liberal. When my colleagues and I were in Israel, one of the things we found quite amusing was that we, as MPs, occasionally complained about the fact that we had a coalition between two parties in Westminster. Obviously, Israeli politicians said they would be absolutely delighted if they could have a coalition between just two parties. Israel’s proportional representation system means that it has a vibrant political system, in which criticism of Government actions happens regularly.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman refer, I believe, to a poem by Saunders Lewis, in which he urges Wales to follow the example of Israel, particularly in terms of reviving its language—it is a poem of great optimism. However, does he not agree that there is a world of difference between the Israel of Yitzhak Rabin and the Israel of Netanyahu?

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

Again, the record, but, unfortunately, not necessarily the media in this country, would support that view.

More important than words are actions, and in 2009-10 there was a freeze on all settlement activity. For a right-wing politician in Israel that is a brave move. The 10-month freeze was met with nine months of no activity by the Palestinians—another missed opportunity.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Guto Bebb]

I will take a final intervention.

[Paul Flynn]

We all condemn the incessant use of rockets by Hezbollah and Hamas, but is there not another danger, given what is happening in Tehran, with the explosions, assassination of scientists and cyber-attacks, that we are in a perilous situation that could lead to war? I believe that the hand of other countries can be seen in what is happening in Tehran, and that is likely to provoke it into a shooting war.

[Guto Bebb]

I am sure that all Members of the House agree that the situation in Iran is dangerous and are concerned about that regime having access to nuclear weapons. Again, negotiation would be a much better option than direct action, and I am sure all hon. Members would agree on that too.

The final point that I wanted to make about the Prime Minister of Israel is that in September 2011 he fully accepted the Quartet initiative, which was the basis on which negotiations could restart. Again the response of the Palestinian Authority has been to obstruct the process and provide the Quartet with evidence without consultation with Israel. The whole point of the Quartet initiative was to ensure that proposals would go forward in tandem with Israel and the Palestinians. That did not happen. Time and again Israel has made generous offers, which have been rejected. That is not to say that it should not continue to make generous offers. It is simply to say that the exhortations to Israel to make the next move ignore the reality of the past 10 years.

The context of the statement to the House was the near euphoria in this country about the changes in many parts of the Arab world, which have been welcomed on both sides of the House. We welcome changes and moves towards democracy in Egypt. There has been a brave effort in Syria to deal with a regime that has been, to say the least, unkind to its people. There is successful democracy in Tunisia, and we all welcome those changes. However, it is crucial to put them in the context of how they appear to someone living in an Israeli state where the borders suddenly look extremely vulnerable for perhaps the first time in 30 years. Israel’s land border with Egypt has been a solid part of its security for the past 30 years, but suddenly there is a question as to where it is going. Syria has never been a friend of Israel, and no one in the Chamber would claim that it was; however, the border between them has been stable for a generation. Discontent is clearly being shown in Jordan, and that border too has been a successful part of the peace process in Israel. Israel seems to be threatened by change on all sides. Finally, the malign influence of the Iranian regime is present in both southern Lebanon and the Gaza strip. That, again, is part of the context that was missing from the statement.

I have three or four questions, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could respond to them. First, why did the statement ignore the efforts made by Israel over the past 10 years? That is a reasonable question. Secondly, why did the statement almost fully argue that the expectation was that Israel should make the next move? Israel certainly has to make a move, but to say that the onus is entirely on Israel’s shoulders was questionable. Thirdly, why was no equal and corresponding demand made of the Palestinian Authority to show a degree of flexibility? Finally, why did the statement ignore the context? As I said, although we welcome the changes, we must acknowledge that they look threatening to a state of 7 million people surrounded by potentially hostile neighbours.

The Israeli Government have shown a willingness to engage. I believe that the only way forward is a two-state solution, which will happen only through negotiation. The British Government, with our experience in Northern Ireland, can contribute positively to that debate, but the debate needs a balanced approach and balanced language.

Organ Donation

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing this debate. On whether this is an issue to be debated in Westminster or in the Welsh Assembly, is the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) implying that no contribution to the debate can be made in a Westminster context? There is a real question mark as to whether the Assembly has the legislative competence to deal with the issue.

[Paul Flynn]

I served in Parliament before there was a Welsh Assembly, unlike the two hon. Gentlemen. Since it has come into being I have absolutely never, at any time, become involved with, made speeches on, or interfered in those responsibilities of education and health in Wales, which are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. We have to accept that and realise that there are Welsh Assembly responsibilities and other responsibilities here. I do not want to labour that point, however, because there is a more important point to be made—

[Guto Bebb]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Flynn]

No, I will not. I have been asked to be brief. We must get away from what we are hearing from prattling prelates and procrastinating politicians and look at the real issue. We cannot talk about a system that is working well, as was suggested this morning, when 1,000 families were bereaved last year in the UK and 50 families were bereaved in Wales. I will not talk about one family in my constituency where a young woman died waiting for an organ transplant because it is too heartbreaking a story, but I want to say something about the reality. Despite all the fine theories and words ahead, what is happening to real people in our constituencies?

Some of us listened to the testimony of Matthew Lomas and his mother when they came to Parliament a month ago. It was a dreadful story of suffering that moved us all. Matthew and his brother were born with congenital heart defects and they both had pacemakers. Matthew was suddenly getting a great deal of pain and discomfort and was taken to the hospital, where the diagnosis was a sombre one. His heart was growing and he would eventually die. He was told that on a scale of one to 10 his chance of surviving was at 9.9, and the family prepared for Matthew’s death. They were told that a heart transplant was a possibility, so they arranged for him to go to Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital, where he had a series of assessments. When the doctor told them that he would have to have a transplant, his mother said:

“Matt and I stared at each other it was so surreal. Had we both heard the same thing? We didn’t talk. Matt may have wept, I can’t be sure. I felt numb and could only think about my son who I had just been told was dying.

The sister came back in. ‘Had you been expecting to hear that?’ she asked gently. ‘No!’ we said together. It was the first thing we had said since hearing the awful news. ‘I thought Matt would need a new pacemaker.’ I said.”

She told the story—which some hon. Members will have heard—of the dreadful things that happened from then on. There were false alarms; a call from Birmingham came at 2 o’clock in the morning. They prepared themselves and started to drive up the motorway, only to be told when they were halfway there that the heart was not suitable. There were many other false alarms along the way. Eventually the transplant did occur—I find it difficult to read the whole story so I will cut it short. The family went through agony as the young man approached death. He was fitted with a device that would keep him alive for 28 days, but death was a certainty at the end. By good fortune—not from the wisdom of politicians or prelates—he survived. He is at home now and has a life expectancy of five years.

Another constituent of mine, a young woman the same age as Matt, died last year because there was no heart available. I believe we must say—because the overwhelming evidence is there in spite of what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) said this morning—that the weight of the medical evidence shows the best way forward, and that is the decision that the Welsh Assembly is about to take. For goodness sake, instead of going along as we are—particularly today—serving the few rather than the many and talking about our various political differences, let us realise that this is an area in which we politicians can save lives and lift the burden of anxiety from families waiting for organs. We know that all of the evidence—the fair evidence, not the procrastinating evidence we have heard this morning—shows that there will be more organs available. For goodness sake, let us allow the Welsh Assembly a free run to get on with it and lead the country as it has in the past with other reforms. We hope that England and the rest of the United Kingdom will follow suit when the reforms produced by the Welsh Assembly are proved to be a great success.

S4C

Debate between Paul Flynn and Guto Bebb

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb]

My view is obviously that any decision of this nature should involve a degree of consultation. We need to be aware of the fact that there is a question mark over the matter, when the viewing figures indicate that the contribution of the channel to the Welsh language is not as important as it should be. So, we are where we are and we need to think carefully about the way forward.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Although the hon. Gentleman’s points are fascinating, we should go back to why S4C was set up. I was very much involved in the matter at the time because I was chairman of the Broadcasting Council for Wales. S4C was set up by Mrs Thatcher as a volte-face. She was reading Irish history at the time, and there was a very strong reason why she decided that S4C should be put in place: it was to avoid linguistic divisions in Wales. S4C was established to provide a full service for both communities in Wales—those who speak English predominantly and those who speak Welsh. We cannot judge the value of S4C purely on the basis of the number of viewers it has; there is a much deeper reason why it exists.

[Guto Bebb]

I acknowledge that there were deeper reasons for establishing S4C, but we must also recognise that the channel needs to serve the people of Wales, whether they are Welsh speakers, Welsh learners or non-Welsh speakers. There are question marks over whether the viewing figures are disappointing at times and whether the channel is doing what it should be doing. The feeling that the channel has moved away from the people it is supposed to serve is demonstrated, I believe, in the campaign that we have seen during the past few weeks in response to the potential threat to the channel. Even the Welsh Language Society, which no one could doubt is committed to the channel, is arguing for fair funding and a new S4C, because it believes that the current channel is perhaps not performing as it should.

When we talk about S4C, we often mention the wider cultural and economic implications, but it is interesting to note that the channel’s economic contribution has changed considerably over the past 20 years. The way that it once created new industries in parts of west and north-west Wales has certainly changed dramatically, and the loss of the Barcud studios in Caernarfon is an indication of that change and shows that the economic argument needs to be looked at again.

It is crucial that we move on and consider the future challenges that we face. Last night it was announced that the BBC would be taking over the funding of the channel, so there is now a need for clarity on the nature of the proposed settlement. We should acknowledge that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has accepted the argument for having S4C, which I appreciate. It is likely that the channel’s funding will be transferred to the BBC from 2014, so I would like to ask the Minister a few questions on what we have heard in the media and from the Chancellor this afternoon.

Will the funding for S4C be safeguarded within the BBC, and by what mechanism? It is all very well saying that the money will be forthcoming from the BBC licence payer, but by what mechanism will the S4C budget be protected within that licence fee? We are all aware that during the past four months the BBC has announced a 17% cut in its programming for S4C, with very little consultation, so I would like some clarification on that point. With regard to my earlier point on plurality and editorial independence, if there is a change in the funding mechanism for the channel, it is imperative that there is clarity about editorial and programming independence. I am sure that the Department can respond to that point.

Despite what I have said about S4C’s economic contribution, the channel does play a key role in supporting the cultural industries in Wales, especially independent television producers. If a pot of money from the BBC licence fee is to be made available for S4C, would the Minister clarify whether it will be ring-fenced for the independent producers, rather than swallowed by the BBC? Finally, we need assurances on the future funding for the channel, because if the decision for the BBC to take responsibility for that funding is to go ahead, I would like to know where we will stand not only in 2014, but in 2016 and beyond.