|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 257-ii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Proposed Legislative Competence Order in Council: Charging for Non-Residential Social Care
Thursday 31 January 2008 MR HUW IRRANCA-DAVIES MP, MR GETH WILLIAMS and MR ALAN PROBETT Evidence heard in Public Questions 47 - 78
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee on Thursday 31 January 2008 Members present Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair Mr David Jones Hywel Williams Mark Williams ________________ Witnesses: Huw Irranca-Davies MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Wales Office, Mr Geth Williams, Head of Legislative Policy, Wales Office and Mr Alan Probett, Social Care, Local Government and Care Partnerships Directorate, Department of Health, gave evidence. Q47 Chairman: Good morning and welcome, or should I say welcome back? First of all, Minister, could I thank you for coming before us again at very short notice at a very challenging time for the Wales Office. Could you introduce yourself and your colleagues, please? Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed, thank you, Chairman, Dr Francis. Could I introduce to my left Geth Williams from the legislative policy unit within the Wales Office and Alan Probett from the Department of Health, policy adviser in regulated social care. If you are content, Dr Francis, I am sure my colleagues on either side would be willing to answer questions, particularly on technical issues as well as we go through this. Q48 Chairman: Thank you for that. I know you are keen to speak to us not just about technical matters but on the broader process, and it may well be that in the course of this session you will have that opportunity and, if not, perhaps we could invite you to say something at the end of this session. First of all could I begin by asking a question which this Committee will be asking ministers and everyone else who is coming before us on LCOs and that is what is the difference? What would this proposed LCO allow the Assembly to do that it cannot currently do? Huw Irranca-Davies: Dr Francis, that is a significant question and one that should be put at the front of all of these LCOs in the process we are going through. What difference would it make to the quality of the end experience of the service users of this? Certainly the variations in charging between local authority areas in Wales has long been an issue that has been identified by service users, way back to and including the report in 2000 Charging and Care, a report on England and Wales that was brought forward. There was further research by Swansea University, the Welsh Assembly Government had consultations with stakeholders and also that resulted in the expressions, right across service users, of their concern over the quite wide variations in service charges, which led into reports such as the Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other Non-Residential Social Services. There has been a consistent identification, therefore, not only from an official level but from the end users, that these discrepancies have caused them concern. Under the current powers the Welsh Assembly can of course issue guidance to local authorities under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, but the guidance is exactly what it says, it is guidance. The Assembly currently is limited in how it can actually, beyond guidance, try and perhaps narrow the range of charging that currently goes on, and the figures will show that where there are authorities that currently have, for example, maximum charges, it varies between £16.50 all the way up to £185, so there is the purpose behind this LCO and the justification for it. That is an imperative; that we actually see what will be the difference for the end users, for the people at the end of this LCO. Q49 Mark Williams: Turning to a very specific matter but a fundamental one is the absence in the order of a specific definition on social care and the reliance on another LCO, the Vulnerable Children and Child Poverty LCO, to provide that definition. Why is that the case; why is there not a specific and clearer definition proposed in this order but you instead rely on another LCO? Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mr Williams, and I have to say that this shows the role that this Committee plays in terms of proper scrutiny of these LCOs coming through. You are absolutely right, the proposed vulnerable children order in council was presented to the National Assembly for Wales for scrutiny before this domiciliary care order, but we are not in a position to present the vulnerable children order to this Committee for scrutiny before this domiciliary care order as negotiations are still on-going. However, I do assure the Committee that if the draft order is laid in Parliament and the National Assembly before the vulnerable children order, it would be amended to include certain conditions currently provided for in the vulnerable children order. The numbering of the matters will also be addressed. Social care is, as you are aware, defined in the proposed vulnerable children order as including residential care, non-residential care, support financially and other assistance and so on. The Welsh Assembly Government intends that the same definition of social care in the vulnerable children order should apply across the social welfare field; however, for the purpose of this order, as on the details within the order itself, residential care will not be relevant as it will be excluded from the proposed competence by the wording within it. I hope that answers the question; it has slightly in the timetabling shifted around, but we have addressed the way that that will be defined with the definitions in the vulnerable children order and also within the matters. If there is a slight slip in the timetable we will make sure that it is properly laid out in the legislation. Mark Williams: I appreciate the solution that you have now come to, but that could obviously be much clearer were that definition contained in this order. Q50 Hywel Williams: Thank you, Chairman. We had a meeting jointly with the Assembly on 27 November with the Deputy Minister in front of us and I just want to clear up some matters of detail on that. She referred to adult recipients of non-residential care in her evidence; can you confirm that the proposal will allow the Assembly to legislate in respect of local authority charges for non-residential services provided to children and young people as well? Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, absolutely, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. You are absolutely right, the terms of this Order in Council would encompass children as well in terms of non-residential domiciliary care, so yes. Thank you for that opportunity. Q51 Hywel Williams: You have referred already to the wide variation in charges. Would the proposed Order enable the Assembly to abolish charges for non-residential care finally? Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I can give you the technical answer that this bestows upon the Assembly should it be laid. The competence extends right across the charging field so technically yes, but I would put a strong proviso on that which is that the clear indication of the Welsh Assembly Government in recognition that currently all local authorities in Wales apply some charge, the policy intention behind this, as the Minister has clearly stated, is to try and regulate the wide range as opposed to the complete abolishment of non-residential and domiciliary charges. Yes, the competence is there; the intention is not there to do that at the moment. Q52 Mr Jones: Would the proposed Order enable the Assembly to regulate the method for calculating an individual's income? Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, within the terms of the competence it would allow the Assembly to determine the way in which local authorities currently take into account income factors within their calculation of charging, so it would allow that. Geth or Alan, I do not know if you want to add to that in terms of the detail. Mr Williams: I am not sure we can add to that at this stage. The competence is clearly to grant the Assembly competence over charges and presumably that includes the way those charges are calculated. Huw Irranca-Davies: The straight answer is yes. Q53 Mr Jones: Thank you for that. Local authorities have got power at present to charge for a defined range of social care services under section 17 of the Health and Social Services and the Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. Why does the scope of the proposed Order not just mirror the range of services for which local authorities can charge under that Act? Huw Irranca-Davies: Sorry, Mr Jones, you are not referring here to the exceptions under the retained matters which are listed within the Order. Q54 Mr Jones: No, this is a defined range of social care services. Huw Irranca-Davies: I just wonder whether I can tease out from you a little bit some of the specifics on that, such as the examples of that, Mr Jones? Mr Jones: I have to rely upon my adviser for the examples, Minister. Q55 Chairman: We are talking about section 17 here. Huw Irranca-Davies: Dr Francis, I am not quite clear on the detail of the question but I wonder whether it would be helpful for the Welsh Assembly officials if we can clarify the point and we will happily write to the Committee with an answer on that, because I am not quite clear on the purpose behind it, but we will happily write to you and confirm it. Q56 Mr Jones: Thank you, Minister. This is very much on the same line: is it contemplated that the discretion that is now vested in local authorities by section 17 will be repealed as a result of the proposed Order and any measure that may flow from it? Huw Irranca-Davies: Certainly, within the competence of this, in the language that is used within the Order in Council, it would - subject to consultation, including with the WLGA who totally welcome this and in fact have strongly welcomed the principle behind this - look not only at the charging regime but at those matters that impact upon it, including allowances that are made in terms of the income and all those other factors. So it is certainly within the competence, but because it is related I suspect to your previous question if we can bring the detail forward we will write to you with a response on that. Q57 Mr Jones: I think the question of local authority discretion is what is important and what is certainly exercising a number of councils I have spoken to. Would it be unfair to describe this proposal as a highly interventionist proposal by the Assembly Government? Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, and the reason I say that is it is certainly an Order in Council that is not only welcomed by service users but also in principle by the WLGA, but for any subsequent measures that are brought forward it has been made clear by the Minister that there will be the fullest consultation, because the last thing that the Welsh Assembly Government wanted to do was either to impose measures that affected the quality or unfairly affected the fees charging arrangement for the end users or unfairly imposed obligations upon local authorities that they did not feel that they could actually comply with. Certainly, the Welsh Assembly Minister responsible has made that clear. Is it an unfair imposition? No, because I think it has been welcomed by the WLGA, subject to those provisos on proper consultation. Q58 Mr Jones: I would be unduly cynical if I were to describe this as a power grab by Assembly Ministers at the expense of local authorities. Huw Irranca-Davies: I would never accuse you of being unduly cynical at all, or any member of this Committee but it is fair to say that this has been broadly welcomed because of the issue that has been identified through it, which is not a narrow disparity in charging but such a wide range and such a feeling that there has been unfairness in this, but how do you reconcile this? This is part of the process should it be laid, but it also has to be part of the process to be properly consulted on when those measures are brought forward, so it is not a pure imposition in some Stalinist way, I have to say, it is an imposition that has been welcomed by most stakeholders in the field. Q59 Hywel Williams: Just referring to the question that was asked a moment ago, that is just complete ignorance on my part as to whether the HASSASSAA - a very effective name - actually defines under section 17 what can be charged for. As a matter of principle, I am asking you - and it might be because of ignorance - when we have further orders will they always reflect the legislation which has already been passed here, or does it give the Assembly scope to charge for other things in this case? Can they go skiing off piste subsequently? Perhaps you would like to answer that by letter. Huw Irranca-Davies: I am happy to answer that by letter because it does tie in to what was earlier said, but if I can answer that by letter we will do that. Q60 Mark Williams: I am returning to definitions or perhaps the lack of them in the Order. The proposed Order concerns "charging for non-residential social care" and yet there is no specific definition of non-residential social care in the Order. Why is that so? Huw Irranca-Davies: It does tie a little bit back to the response that I gave earlier which is that social care is defined and will be defined within the vulnerable children order, and certainly that is the definition that will be referred to albeit with some timetable overlapping within this particular Order; however, excluding the issue of residential care. There will therefore be a definition that we will be working from, but it will be within the vulnerable children order instead and simply, as is made clear on the Order in Council that we are currently looking, the wording of this is specifically for non-residential. Q61 Mark Williams: Turning to excepted matters, do you see any conflict between the competence to make payments to individuals for non-residential social care and reserved matters? The Order lists the excepted matters which are child support, tax credits, child benefit, guardian's allowance, social security, independent living funds and motability. Is there a potential clash there? Huw Irranca-Davies: No, quite the opposite, Mr Williams, but it is an important issue as we look at each one of these LCOs coming through. It is very important in the scrutiny of this that we do define clearly those areas which are retained, and those exclusions are very specific to areas that otherwise would be impinging in some sort of way in a sort of reverse devolution on the Whitehall administration and the Westminster Government. All those issues you mentioned: child benefit, guardian's allowance, social security, independent living funds, motability and child support are all retained functions and none of these LCOs are meant to challenge that and if you like to broaden the field of devolution, it is within what is already prescribed within Schedule 5 and Schedule 7. Q62 Mark Williams: You do not take the view that that extensive list could actually have implications on future measures from the centre? Huw Irranca-Davies: The implications for future measures would be purely to delineate clearly where the legislative competence would be, so any measures that they brought forward under the matters inserted in the fields would only be - and that is why those exclusions are in there - in their field of competence. That, I have to say, is very much where this Committee and the Houses of Parliament very much play a role in making sure that we get that right, so actually within this Order I would compliment the Welsh Assembly Government officials and those of the Department of Health and other departments who have very clearly prescribed where those exclusions should lie, not only for now but for the future, because as this competence is passed down the competence is there for ever and a day. Q63 Hywel Williams: Can I ask about any effects, if there are any effects, in the private sector? The Welsh Assembly Government says that the Order will not affect private providers because it is limited to charges levied by local authorities. Is there any risk at all that Wales could become less attractive to private non-residential care providers as compared to England? Huw Irranca-Davies: No, I do not think so, and as you know, Mr Williams, this particular Order refers very specifically not to the private sector, so it does not impinge directly. The motivation behind this is very much to ensure - in concert, I have to say, with the parallel strategies that the Welsh Assembly Government already has in place in terms of quality of care, in terms of both domiciliary and residential care - that the whole field of care is actually lifted up, both in the charging regimes that we are looking at today, but also in terms of the wider private and public sector provision. I do not have a worry that it will impact negatively on that, in fact quite the opposite. Q64 Hywel Williams: It might be different rather than better or worse, as it were, but it just occurred to me as we were speaking earlier if the charges in Powys are £185 and the charges in the Rhondda are about £18, that sets a ceiling for charges. If everywhere in Wales was £100, presumably it is less attractive in Powys to provide private services because there is some element of competition there. Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a very fair point, and I suspect that the Welsh Assembly Minister and the National Assembly for Wales will also want to consider that issue when subsequent measures are brought through, so that in the consultation that I have talked about hose wider issues of the effect on the private sector are taken into consideration as well when measures are brought forward. Sometimes I know it causes some frustration for Members of Parliament and Committee members here as we look at the scope and the appropriateness and the value of an order like this because we cannot adequately speculate and second-guess what the National Assembly for Wales is going to take as a view when they bring forward the measures, but I would fully expect that not only the Welsh Assembly Government but the wider National Assembly for Wales in its scrutiny role would want to deal with exactly that sort of question when measures are brought forward. Q65 Hywel Williams: This is an observation, Chairman, but I am worried about market failures because especially in rural Wales there are all kinds of difficulties. If I can move on to a question about payments, the proposed Order refers to "payments" whereas the Explanatory Note refers to "direct payments", and for me a direct payment scheme is something very specific. What is the reason for the difference and perhaps you would like to explain what types of payments, other than direct payments, would be included within the scope of the proposed Order? Huw Irranca-Davies: Can you just repeat the question again, Mr Williams, I missed part of it? Q66 Hywel Williams: The Order refers to "payments" whereas the Explanatory Note refers to "direct payments". Direct payments in my experience are payments that some people with a disability receive from the local authority to enable them then to purchase their own care. One constituent, for example, gets a large amount of money from the Independent Living Fund and putting all that together enables him to buy 24 hour care, and some of that is a direct payment from the local authority. There is just an inconsistency between the Order and the Explanatory Note because "direct payments" actually means something very special as far as I understand it. I am just wondering if your perception is the same. Huw Irranca-Davies: Certainly our understanding of this is that the matter refers to payments rather than direct payments. We did not want to limit the potential scope of this matter by using the name of one particular scheme as it exists at this point in time because it could change. The reference to "payments" in this particular LCO is intended to capture all relevant payments, irrespective of what the name of that payment scheme happens to be, and whilst there are not any types of payments that fall within the scope of the LCO at this current time, we cannot assume that this will always be the case, so the broader definition of payments as opposed to direct payments is one that I think helps to address that issue that you raise. Q67 Chairman: Could we now move on to the question of cross-border issues? When we jointly scrutinised the Deputy Health Minister, Mrs Gwenda Thomas, we raised this question of the possibility of breaches in what we would call the quality of provision across the border, and she quite rightly emphasised the importance of the need to do things better rather than doing things differently. Have you had discussions on the possibility or the danger of very different policies and different legislation between England and Wales and that having an effect or a breakdown in fairness and equality of provision? Huw Irranca-Davies: Dr Francis, I am steering way back from using the stock ministerial answer which is the one that we have regular discussions on a range of subjects and all that because it would be unfair entirely to use that. We are cognizant of this and actually we welcome the Welsh Affairs Select Committee's enquiring into cross-border issues which may well take in this issue as well. We are at a level of maturity now within the devolution settlement that we would fully expect in the bringing forward of measures that relate to this, to bring them forward with a view to improving the quality of care and provision and charging on this aspect, and to be cognizant of those cross-border issues. It is significant in terms of this LCO that there is an immediate practical issue of an individual who might live literally one side of Offah's Dyke but who also receives some services five miles across the road because of the configuration of social care and health within that area. That individual, as long as they are a resident of Wales, would be covered within this, and they would be acutely aware of any difference from a different type of charging regime across the border. I would anticipate and I would, yes, echo the sentiments in my discussions with Welsh Assembly Government ministers that on this, as with any other issue that has cross-border implications, they do take into account that it is not to do with policy differential for the sake of policy differential, it is to do with what has a positive impact on the quality of the provision that is received by the end user. Q68 Chairman: I take it from that answer then that you would be very hostile to a journey that would result in a two-tier service between England and Wales. Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. Dr Francis, we are rightly content with the idea of policy differential but that policy differential has to ensure that on both sides of the border there is proper and good provision for all the end users. That does not mean that there should not be different approaches, in fact in some ways that is one of the great benefits of devolution, that we can have different approaches and different experiments in a way to best provide services for people, but if it results in better or worse then that does become an issue. I do not expect it to be with this one, but certainly I am very cognizant of the points that you make and I am sure that the Welsh Assembly Government minister is as well. Q69 Mr Jones: Minister, you say that you do not expect there to be problems but Denbighshire County Council, part of whose area I represent, and also councils from Conway have expressed concern that the abolition of charges for non-residential care could lead to people crossing the border from England into Wales for their retirement. This is a phenomenon that exists already, but it could indeed exacerbate that - we have all heard anecdotes of people crossing the border from England into Wales to get their free prescriptions. Do you agree with these concerns expressed by Denbighshire County Council? Huw Irranca-Davies: It is a valid point and they are valid concerns. My feeling is that those issues, which will not only be from Denbighshire County Council but from others as well, should be fully articulated at the point at which these measures are brought forward - and now as well, I have to say, because it is thoroughly appropriate to exercise those issues here as well. At the point where measures are brought forward it is vitally important that the concerns of Denbighshire County Council and others are fed into the way in which these measures are brought forward because if there were to be negative implications of a policy differential, those need to be fully debated, fully discussed and ways around found that that did not happen, that those negative impacts of what is a well-meaning policy issue did not come about. It is a valid issue, it is a valid concern, the question is when the measures are brought forward are the right things put in place to make sure that that does not happen. Q70 Mr Jones: Do you want to add to that, Minister? Huw Irranca-Davies: Only one aspect, Mr Jones. One thing to bear in mind as well as we look at this is the possible impact of any future changes and the scale of it. In Wales I understand that of the 66,000 adults receiving community-based non-residential services, only around 14,000 of those are actually being charged at this moment. Add to this the fact that the cost of any move would far outweigh the amount being saved by reduced charges, we understand we think that we are very unlikely to see the number of people retiring to Wales - the very point that you were making - increasing as a result of this policy, but it is still an issue that should be addressed when measures are brought forward. Q71 Mr Jones: Would you accept that this is a concern that is possibly greater in North Wales than it is in South Wales because in North Wales of course people do live a lot closer to the border than they tend to do in South Wales, there are much bigger conurbations close to the English border than there are in South Wales and this of course is a phenomenon that is causing difficulties in North Wales in other areas - I am thinking in particular of neurosurgery where the Welsh Assembly Government's policy on elective neurosurgery is causing huge difficulties because of course people are used to crossing the border in North Wales. You say that the concerns of Denbighshire County Council will be taken into consideration, but my frank concern is that the Assembly Government appears to be very much South Wales oriented and appears to have a great deal - you may grimace, Minister, but that is the impression that my constituents who were relying on neurosurgery services are now getting. Clearly the memorandum from Denbighshire in this regard shows that they have a similar concern in respect of social care. Huw Irranca-Davies: Their concern is a valid one and in putting forward those concerns they are doing a very good job in flagging up very early on what their concerns will be as measures come forward. It would also be a concern, I have to say, whether it was in Knighton and Presteigne, whether it was in Chepstow et cetera; although I do take your point about the large conurbations in the North East there are also significant conurbations in Bristol, the Midlands and so on which would have an effect. Q72 Mr Jones: But much further from the border. Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, but the same principle applies and this will factor into the investigation that you are doing in the Welsh Affairs Select Committee I am sure. All I would say in responding, whilst acknowledging those concerns which are valid to be raised here and valid to be raised as measures come forward, is that the WLGA which does reflect authorities right across the board, in all parts of Wales and is a very mix of nature, both in terms of the types of authorities but also the political make-up of those authorities as well - they are broadly welcoming this in terms of the principle; in fact, I say that in a fairly cool manner. They are welcoming of this, they want to see this work because they can see the benefits of it, but you are right in saying that the concerns you have raised and others have raised will need to be addressed by the measures that are brought forward. I have confidence that when measures are brought forward, if this is laid, the National Assembly for Wales, a democratically elected body, will have the ability to properly scrutinise them and to feed into this process, and feed in the concerns from North, South, East and West. Q73 Chairman: Could I end by asking a very open-ended question and I hope that you use this as an opportunity to give your observations on your experiences - yours and our Committee's experiences - over the past six to eight months. Do you share my cautious optimism that the process is working, that we are hearing less and less, maybe thankfully only in the media, about concerns over blocking and delays and what we are actually witnessing is the working out of a process of rigorous scrutiny, both in Whitehall and in Westminster and in the Assembly? Would you lay out before us your thoughts on this briefly? Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, thank you, Dr Francis, for that opportunity, and it was remiss of me at the beginning not to - so perhaps I can say it as part of my concluding comments - to welcome the opportunity always to be in front of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. Yes, I do share the optimism in terms of the way we are developing this process, because undoubtedly this is a new process. We are in the first year of bringing forward these Orders in Council. Members of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and others have raised their views about how to improve the process as we go. I know that internally within the Wales Office we are very seized, working in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Government, that we learn from what we have done so far, including issues such as how to better project manage the whole path of Orders in Council/Legislative Competence Orders, in order that from the moment when the announcement is made on the floor of the National Assembly for Wales of the intention for an order to be brought forward, that there is an early managed approach to how we manage expectations around it, manage the policy negotiations, both in the Assembly and through Whitehall. Obviously the Welsh Affairs Select Committee as well has a strong input into this, and how we talk about what is realistic in terms of timetables around it. There is a lot of learning going on, but do I share the optimism? Yes, I do, because in the first year of a process like this realistically it would have been expected that there was an enormous amount to get to grip with, how this process would work. What was laid down in the Government of Wales Act was only the starting point of it and the input of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee has been invaluable in taking this forward. We particularly welcome the fact that the Welsh Affairs Select Committee has now met for the first time in joint scrutiny of an Order in Council and we hope that will become the basis of future work. We will be doing our end as well and by the end of this session I am more than cautiously optimistic that we will have proven that this procedure, for all the criticisms that there have been of it - sometimes external criticisms from those not involved in the process, I have to say - will prove that we can deliver well-scrutinised, solid pieces of legislative Orders in Council that the National Assembly for Wales will subsequently be able to give full consideration to in their democratically elected bodies. I am cautiously optimistic and I would like to reiterate my thanks to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee for the singular role that they have played in developing this process as we have gone along. Chairman: While we are in the mood of being nice to one another could I reciprocate and say that this morning's session has been refreshingly open and full of a sense of not certainty but genuine uncertainty about some of these things. I imagine the Royal Mail will be very pleased because you are going to be sending us lots of letters clarifying the position. Mr David Jones wants to ask a question. Q74 Mr Jones: I am sure we are all agreed as to the importance of scrutiny and I would certainly agree that the scrutiny process of legislative competence orders is actually starting to fall into a pattern and is certainly starting to work. We have all gone through something of a learning curve, but would you agree, Minister, that it is equally important that framework powers in bills should be subject to adequate scrutiny too? Would you agree with that? Huw Irranca-Davies: Entirely. Q75 Mr Jones: Could you explain, therefore, why the Welsh framework powers which are incorporated in the Planning Bill which is currently in committee were not available for debate on the floor of the House at Second Reading and in fact were produced only on Thursday of last week? Huw Irranca-Davies: Dr Francis, will you allow me some leeway perhaps to respond to a very question from Mr Jones? Q76 Chairman: I thought you were going to offer to write us another letter. Huw Irranca-Davies: I am very happy to say that both in terms of the complexity of that Bill and the detailed negotiations and discussions going on as to the precise wording of those powers we would have liked to have seen those brought forward earlier so that there was some earlier consideration; I am being quite frank in that. Having said that, the shape now that they have arrived in, we hope is such a good shape that it will allow proper consideration of scrutiny. Ideally, Mr Jones, you are absolutely right, they would have been there earlier and we will do our best. Q77 Mr Jones: Whose fault is it because the request was made last summer, I was told at an evidence session about three weeks ago. The request was made to the Wales Office last summer and it took them six months for just one clause to be drafted. I appreciate there has to be liaison between departments and so on, but that does seem to me to be an inordinately long time, and what concerns me is that fortuitously there are three Welsh members of the Planning Bill Committee but no Welsh colleagues have had the opportunity of debating this on the floor of the House at Second Reading; the only opportunity there will be will be on report, when of course time is limited. I must express my personal concern that a matter of constitutional significance, the devolution of primary powers to the Welsh Assembly, appears as a bolt-on extra to the Bill, very much at the last moment. I would like to record I do not think it is acceptable and I would like to know whose fault it was. Huw Irranca-Davies: If I could say in response, Mr Jones, it is the fault of no one in specific; the cause of it, however, is the very complex nature of the devolution settlement, and we are certainly of the firm opinion that an issue of such crucial importance - not only in terms of the planning regime but constitutionally as well - it is absolutely right that there are and there have been detailed and positive long discussions to get this to where we are. Ideally we would have brought it forward before, but it is now in a position where it is fit for purpose. I might also add as well - and I know you were there and it was great to see a very good attendance at the briefing session that we held on this, the best attendance at any briefing session, in which, even though we did not have the clause and the amendments in place, what we did have was, I have to say, a fair degree of clarity, both from the Welsh Assembly Government minister and myself as to what would be in it. It is no different from what we actually said in that briefing a fortnight ago. I do take your point and ideally we would have wanted to bring it forward earlier. Chairman: At the risk of reopening a situation, these are questions that will obviously be raised when we have the new Secretary of State for Wales before us, and we hope that will be sooner rather than later. Are you happy with that, Mr Jones? Mr Jones: There was one further point, Chairman, with your indulgence and very briefly. Chairman: You are struggling with your voice though. Very briefly for the sake of your voice. Q78 Mr Jones: You mentioned the point of the briefing session and I would like to thank you for that because it was helpful. The concern I have, however, is that only Welsh colleagues were as I recall invited to that - correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that it would have been helpful if members of the Planning Bill Committee could have had the opportunity for such a briefing too because they will be considering it, possibly this very afternoon, unsighted. A suggestion might be that bill committees also should be invited to such briefing sessions. I appreciate there is always a difficulty in terms of timing and so on - the committee may not have been selected - but a suggestion is that it would be helpful for the information of members of those committees. Huw Irranca-Davies: Mr Jones, I am seeing nods around the table here and I think that is a very constructive suggestion that we can take away and look at. Certainly, we do want to make this process as inclusive as possible. What we are trying to do is extend the level of scrutiny and whilst there has been an issue over here over the timing of these, what we want to make sure is that all members, Welsh or not, have a proper opportunity to input. We will take that away and look at it and perhaps through the usual channels as well look at the way we can do it. I do welcome your recognition as well that we have three Welsh members on that Planning Bill Committee as well, so that has to be a good thing. Thank you for that very constructive suggestion. Chairman: On that constructive note could I thank you, Minister, for a very useful session once again, and thank you also to your colleagues. Could I take this opportunity to say that this is the first session that we have held since the changeover in the Wales Office with the new Secretary of State for Wales and I would like, as Chairman, to place on record my personal thanks and I am sure my colleagues would join with me here in placing on record our appreciation of the work of the former Secretary of State for Wales, the Rt Hon Peter Hain, in his major contribution to democratic devolution. We also look forward to hearing the new Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Paul Murphy; we warmly welcome his appointment and congratulate him. I hope that you convey those congratulations to him and our thanks to the Rt Hon Peter Hain as well. Thank you very much. |