Welsh Affairs

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

It would be wonderful if that is the case. If it is happening, it is clearly welcome.

I draw attention to the proposed Colwyn Bay tidal lagoon in my constituency, which would have an installed capacity of around 2.5 GW. That is significantly more than the Swansea lagoon. Frankly, it would have the output of a nuclear power station. It would be completely carbon neutral and would probably require little maintenance throughout its very long lifetime of around 125 years, as a minimum.

Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), who also have constituency interests, I recently had a meeting with the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change to discuss the proposal, and I am pleased to say that he appeared to be more than interested. Again, I urge the Government to work with prospective developers on producing a feasibility study on what would be a hugely important piece of energy-generating infrastructure off the north Wales coast.

[Hywel Williams]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to ignore the flood-prevention function of such a lagoon, which is one of the reasons why I support it, too. Communities along the north-west Wales coast have suffered very much in the past, and we remember the poor people of Towyn many years ago. I am sure that is another benefit of the lagoon.

[Mr Jones]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember that we discussed lagoons on the Welsh Affairs Committee 15 years ago. I would not want to see another 15 years pass before the Government do something to encourage such a development. He is absolutely right that another important function of lagoons is that they are an additional layer of coastal protection, quite apart from the leisure opportunities they present, so they are extremely important.

The Mersey Dee is a hugely important industrial and commercial area that straddles the north Wales-England border. It is the seat of many nationally and internationally important companies such as Airbus, Toyota and Vauxhall, but it is hampered by the border passing through the middle of it. Part of the area is subject to economic policies developed in Westminster, and the other part is subject to economic policies developed in Cardiff. There is frequently a lack of joined-up economic development policy, which impedes the region in achieving its full potential.

The Mersey Dee Alliance is an important organisation comprised of private sector companies, local authorities, academic institutions and others. Its focus, and that of the all-party parliamentary group on Mersey Dee North Wales, is to maximise growth in this unique cross-border region. I and other officers of the group, together with leaders of the Mersey Dee Alliance, recently had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), to discuss ways in which a more co-ordinated approach to the region might be pursued with the Welsh Government.

There are good reasons to do so. In fact, Dr Elizabeth Haywood, in a 2012 report for the Welsh Government, recommended the creation of a quasi-city region straddling the border between England and north Wales. I strongly urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to work with colleagues in the Welsh Government to reassess that report and to work to create that city region, with a formalised role for the Mersey Dee Alliance, to produce co-ordinated policies for the whole region. I think the proposal has widespread support in north Wales and north-west England, and it would do a great deal to improve still further the economic potential of what is already one of the most important industrial areas of the country.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman has made that point already, and I agree with it.

In contrast to the EU internal market, the nature of the UK internal market appears to be self-evident and a matter of common sense to many people. It might be great and it might be something that has grown organically and suits us all, but how often have we seen apparently simple, clear and—crucially—unregulated systems descend into a writhing tangle of irreconcilable and conflicting interests? That is what might happen. We might wish for a simple UK internal market, but we might regret it if we wish for it. We will vote for new clause 64 but, if it is passed, we will give close consideration to how it could be improved through further amendments.

Subsidiarity is supposedly one of the governing principles of the European Union. Powers are supposed to be exercised as close to the citizen as possible. That model does not exist in the UK, where the UK Government remain sovereign. We rely on the separation of competences listed in the newly enshrined reserved powers model in the recently passed Wales Act 2017. This Bill, as it stands, undermines and reverses 20 years of the existence of the National Assembly for Wales.

Professor Rawlings, the professor of public law at University College London, in evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 31 October, highlighted the concern over what he describes as the double-hatted nature of the UK Government, meaning that they simultaneously represent the UK-wide Government and the Government of England. I raised that point during my speech on our first day in Committee. As I said earlier, this raises a concern not only about conflicts of interest, but about the fact that the subcultures, networks and assumptions of large Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, are focused, almost unconsciously, on England. That has been a recurring theme throughout Select Committee evidence sessions. As I said with reference to the Department of Health, this is a long-standing difficulty.

In evidence to the Brexit Committee on 17 October, Laura Dunlop, QC said:

“In our prototype framework—whatever our internal market is destined to look like—at the moment, there is one party in the discussions that is wearing two hats, and that is the UK Government, who are also required to speak for England. That is a significant difficulty, in my view.”

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and I were there to hear Laura Dunlop say that. On 24 October, Dr Viviane Gravey told the Welsh Affairs Committee:

“What I mean by giving greater powers is that during that period planned in the Withdrawal Bill, UK Ministers will be able to change the law that has been given back from Brussels, but the devolved”

Governments

“will not. There is then a question of whether any changes made will be in the interests of the whole of the UK or just of England.”

That is the question.

The United Kingdom consists of four countries—four political bodies—not just one. Democracy requires and values all voices, not just one. Devolution demands that all countries within the United Kingdom have a say in the future, not just one. Members will have the opportunity today to stop this Westminster power grab. If all the Opposition parties turn up to vote, and vote together in the interests of the devolved countries, we can stop this encroachment on Welsh sovereignty and put all four UK countries on an equal footing.

[Mr David Jones]

It is a great pleasure to be asked to address the Committee as a lonely Welsh voice in this Scottish enclave south of the Gangway. I should like to say how impressed I am with my new Scottish colleagues, and with the way in which they stand up for their constituencies and for Scotland.

It was always predictable that clause 11 would be one of the more contentious clauses in the Bill, given that it impinges on the devolution settlements that have been created over the past 20 or so years. When we consider what the clause seeks to achieve, it is important to consider the history of devolution in this country. In the case of Scotland and Wales, it was implemented as a consequence of the two referendums that were held in 1997. That was some years after the United Kingdom became a member of what was then the European Economic Community. Indeed, all our devolution legislation was put in place after we joined. It is important to remember that, at the time of accession to the European Union, devolution was not contemplated.

It was in the context of our membership of the European Union that the various devolution settlements were crafted. The powers that were conferred on the new devolved bodies are consequently subject to overriding EU law, regulations and common frameworks, the principal purpose of which was to protect and preserve the integrity of the European single market, as we have heard repeatedly today. It is a fact, however, that as a consequence of the protection of the European single market, those reservations have operated to protect what I am quite happy to call the UK internal market—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I have never been to Perthshire but I am sure that it is a delightful place. In this country, we have four countries and three devolved bodies, which have competence in the area of economic development, among other things. The hon. Gentleman and I might be at odds on this, but I take the view that there is a United Kingdom internal market. He can come to the contrary conclusion if he wishes.

[Hywel Williams]

I am intrigued. Can the right hon. Gentleman identify anyone who has spoken in the House today who has argued against having a UK internal market?

Wales Bill

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I will speak briefly to amendment 161 in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies). It would amend schedule 1 to the Bill by reserving the setting of speed limits in Wales and the design of road and traffic signs. The whole purpose of devolution should be to make life not more difficult but easier. We will be debating a great many practical amendments to the Bill this evening and this is one where the practical purpose of devolution would be better served by reserving such competences.

Dealing first with speed limits, I strongly suggest that it would be highly counterproductive for speed limits to differ between England and Wales because the road systems of England and Wales are closely integrated. Every day, many thousands of commuters travel backwards and forwards across the border. At certain times of year, such as holiday periods, there are considerable numbers of visitors from other parts of the United Kingdom and the continent of Europe. Such people are not confined to the principal arterial routes of the M4 and the A55, because several other important routes—going both east to west and north to south—cross the border. I am particularly thinking of the A483, the principal route between Manchester and Swansea that crosses and re-crosses the border at several points, and the A490, another well-known border route. To have different national speed limits at distances of possibly every two or three miles would be at the very least confusing and at the very worst positively dangerous.

The context of England and Wales is different from the context of England and Scotland because the integration of the road network between England and Wales is far closer. Given the practicalities, it makes no sense whatsoever to devolve the setting of speed limits to Cardiff.

[Hywel Williams]

I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with considerable interest. Is he saying that motorists are unable to cope with speed limit changes that are signalled by appropriate signs? I know of a stretch of road in my constituency where the limit goes from 40 mph to 30 mph to 20 mph and then back to 30 mph and then 40 mph over a distance of about a mile.

[Mr Jones]

I think it is fair to say exactly that; the hon. Gentleman will remember the former chief constable of North Wales who generated substantial funds out of motorists’ inattention to speed limits. My point is not so much about local speed limits but about national speed limits. It is far more sensible if the national speed limit is set by the Department for Transport in London—if necessary, in consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government. Given that there is such a closely integrated main transport road network between the two nations, it makes no sense to have differential speed limits.

The second point I wish to make is about road signs and I do so principally on the same grounds; as we have such a closely integrated road network, there is the potential to cause considerable difficulty if the Welsh Government were to decide, for whatever reason, completely to redesign road signs. Again, that would be not only confusing, but positively dangerous. The competence for the design of road signs should remain with the DfT in London, although there should be consultation with the Welsh Government.

[Hywel Williams]

Is the right hon. Gentleman’s contention based on any research? I recall, and so will he, the extensive debate in Wales about having Welsh language road signs or bilingual signs. Research was done on various aspects of that, by the Road Research Laboratory, the AA and various people, and they predicted all kinds of doom should we have bilingual signs. Can he point us to any similar research on road signs or differential speed limits?

[Mr Jones]

I have no objection whatever to bilingual road signs—they should be positively encouraged. This is not so much about the language as about the design of the signage. Most of our road signs follow standard European norms, although they may not in the future. If we are to have consistency and avoid danger to motorists, we should have consistency in the design of road signage.

Wales Bill

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

No doubt that is something that we will debate. I relish the opportunity to discuss the reservations and hear the Secretary of State or his colleagues justify them. The explanatory notes include a description or explanation of the reservations but, as far as I can see, there is very little justification for them. I therefore look forward to hearing about that in subsequent debates.

The report by the Wales Governance Centre and University College London on the draft Bill described the list of reservations and said:

“Complexity is piled on complexity...the potential for legal challenge casts a long shadow.”

I see little evidence that the revised list is much clearer. It remains, alas, a lawyer’s playground. As I have said, the shift to a reserved powers model was supposed to be made in tandem with a shift in mentality—that is extremely important—to determine what needed to be reserved, rather than what should be devolved. It is clear that the Secretary of State has instead facilitated a Whitehall trawl of the powers—a pick and mix of what the Sir Humphreys fancy bagging for themselves—sometimes based on principles no deeper than the chance to shout “Mine!”

If the Secretary of State is serious about creating a lasting devolution settlement, he cannot simply flip the current settlement from the conferred powers model to the reserved powers model, then allow Whitehall to pick and choose which tasty bits of power they want to hang on to. The process must be built on principles. I agree with the principles that he identified—clarity and coherence—but I would add proper subsidiarity.

Some time ago I had an entertaining lunch with the Irish Minister responsible for a new Irish language Act. He was quite candid, loquacious and hilarious. He had been to Canada and Quebec and had thieved—his words—a little bit of their language law. He had been to Wales and has snaffled bits of ours. He had been here and there in the rest of Europe, and hey presto, here was their language bill. We do not need to roam two vast continents, stitching together a bit of this and a bit of that. A model is already there for the borrowing and—perhaps Plaid people will forgive me for saying this—it is a home-grown British model called the Scotland Act.

The Silk commission hoped that moving to a reserved powers model would be a chance to rewrite the settlement to remove some of the defects of haste and inconsistency that have so far marred legislative devolution in Wales. The list of reservations does not reflect that hope. The director of the Wales Governance Centre has described the Bill as being underpinned by a “patronising attitude” and as continuing to regard Wales as “enjoying a lower status” than the other devolved nations. In practical terms it will undoubtedly lead to more blame shifting between Cardiff and London. That is the last thing that people in Wales want and the last thing that the governance of the people of Wales requires.

Both the Welsh Affairs Committee, which has a Tory majority, and the National Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, which was also chaired by a Tory, recommended that each reservation should be individually justified. That recommendation has been ignored and, as I said, I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State or his colleagues making up for that as we go into Committee.

The Wales Governance Centre has offered a list of considerations for identifying functions that should be devolved: is it necessary to retain function X for the functioning of the UK as a state? Does retention of Y make the governance of the UK less clear or comprehensible? Does retention of Z undermine the workability, stability or durability of the devolution settlement? These are the questions that the Secretary of State should be asking himself for each and every one of the reservations in the Bill and I hope we will have time to hear him go through those steps. Simply making hundreds of reservations for no given reason is not acceptable, particularly when the real rationale seems to be a deeply suspect power grab by Departments of Government that have failed Wales so spectacularly over the past few years.

[Mr David Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. He talks about the need to analyse each and every one of the proposed reservations. Does he think that two days in Committee will be sufficient to achieve that?

[Hywel Williams]

I am not sure. I am in two minds about that. If we have full days of debate, that might indeed be the case. I have been here too long, so I remember days of Welsh debates which have been interrupted by statements, urgent questions and all kinds of shenanigans that have led to Welsh debates being curtailed. If we have protected time, we shall see. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) will be looking into this point further in his remarks and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be here to hear him.

I challenge the Secretary of State to respond today and offer justifications for why he believes the people of Wales do not deserve the same responsible government as the people of Scotland. As has been said, the Secretary of State voted for the Scotland Act. He voted to give the people of Scotland a Government with full control of Scottish natural resources, policing and criminal justice. He voted to make the Scottish Government responsible for raising a significant proportion of the money that they spend. He has also voted to devolve policing to Manchester, yet he refuses to do so for Wales. What practical reasons are there to insist that Welsh police forces follow the agenda of English forces? Those who were fortunate enough to be in the House last night would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) making just those arguments. What reason is there for focusing largely on problems prevalent in urban England, such as knife crime, rather than on meeting the needs of Wales, and in my case, particularly of rural Wales? What practical reason is there for setting, for example, a 350 MW limit on the Welsh Government’s power over energy—a point that I made to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer in his place—when there is no such limit on the Scottish Government? I raised the wholly practical question about that in my point to that hon. Gentleman. I will expand a little on it now, with the permission of the House.

A local hydroelectric scheme in Snowdonia was going to limit itself to 49 MW—that is the old limit. Those involved told me quite plainly that that was to avoid the entanglements of London bureaucracy. Now they are aiming for 350 MW, and they could produce more, but why should we skew reasonable economic development on the basis of a number that has, as far as I can see, been plucked out of the air? I would like to know why the figure is 350, and not 351 or 349.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I am happy to commend the efforts the hon. Gentleman has made, and I entirely agree that the new build at Wylfa offers exciting prospects for the supply chain and for education. I am particularly impressed with the work that Coleg Menai is putting in, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman at some future date.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

There is universal opposition across north Wales to building more pylons to carry the electricity, whether from Wylfa Newydd or wind production—that extends to the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and others. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that proper and full consideration will be given to under-sea methods of transmission of electricity from any new sources?

[Mr Jones]

Of course, the difficulty with nuclear generation is that it requires the infrastructure to get it to the markets. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some concern has been expressed about this issue, and where possible underground cabling has distinct advantages. No final decisions have been made, and National Grid is carrying out further environmental and technical assessments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Key to this issue is the cross-border protocol. As a consequence of last week’s debate, I have written to both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the Welsh Health Minister, and we will see whether we can improve that protocol.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

9. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and others regarding the future of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Welsh language services.

Wales Bill

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

That, of course, is entirely a matter for the Welsh Government, but, in practice, that is what they are calling it at the moment.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for their amendments 12, 13 and 14, and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for his amendments 17 and 18 and new clause 3. They raise important issues about the provision of cross-border health services in Wales and England, issues which are, of course, vitally important to anyone who lives close to the border—or even not so close, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). Indeed, they are important to anyone who wants world-class health services to be delivered throughout the United Kingdom.

Health is one of the most important services—arguably, the most important service—to be delivered by any Government. We all know that people value the delivery of good health care more than almost every other public service. This is, after all, a service on which we are all likely to call at some stage in our lives. It is therefore essential for any Government to deliver health services which are effective and efficient, and which provide good value for money. In England, the Government will have increased spending on health by about £12.7 billion in cash terms over the lifetime of the current Parliament, delivering an NHS that continues to improve and the health care that people want and deserve. However, none of that would be possible without our front-line NHS teams: the doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals.

As we have heard from Members this evening, the sad fact is that the Labour Government in Cardiff are presiding over a health service in Wales which is declining. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth gave some illustrations of that decline. In Wales, Labour has cut the health budget by 8%, despite having been given an extra £1.6 billion in the block grant. The result has been a decline in health services in Wales which is evident for all to see, with unacceptably long waiting times.

[Hywel Williams]

Whether or not one agrees with the policies of the Labour Government in Cardiff, surely devolution means that it is a matter for them and not for the Secretary of State.

[Mr Jones]

Actually, it is for every elected representative to express concern when a service as important as health is affected. When the devolved Administration are not delivering an adequate standard of health care, it is entirely appropriate for every elected representative to draw attention to that.

Wales Bill

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Simply because it is an important constitutional step. It was given to the Scottish people in 1997, and we feel it is necessary to pay equal respect to the people of Wales on the occasion of the proposed devolution.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Is it the principle of devolution or the practice—the specific nature of income tax devolution—that requires a referendum?

[Mr Jones]

Clearly it is the devolution of income tax, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this was specifically recommended by the Silk commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

My job is to represent Wales. The Labour party advertises itself as the unified, indivisible Labour party in England, Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman’s point is bogus.

It is important that we now move forward, whatever the weaknesses hon. Members on both sides of the House might find in the Bill. Realistically, income tax might not be varied for some time, or ever, depending on what happens in the referendum, but the Bill will give access to vital borrowing and investment powers.

The Silk commission produced its second report earlier this month. Plaid Members say that Wales should be moving to a reserved powers model as swiftly as possible. We believe it would make more sense to have a referendum on the Silk part II recommendations. That larger and more substantive referendum would consider both true income tax-varying powers and wider policy powers. We will table amendments to preserve the integrity of the Silk report recommendations. Given that the principle of fiscal devolution has been conceded in respect of the other tax-varying powers, we say there is no need for a referendum on a simple income tax-sharing model. I agree with the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who is in his place, who said today that that should be the case. We will seek to amend the Bill accordingly.

[Mr David Jones]

At the risk of appearing to carp, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that, a moment ago, he accused the Conservative party of cherry-picking the recommendations of the Silk commission. Is he not cherry-picking, too, when he says that we should dispense with the referendum, which, after all, was recommended by the commission?

[Hywel Williams]

Our argument is on a package of measures, but the Government have cherry-picked. Our ambition—I make no apology whatever for it—is to have both Silk I and II and even more implemented.

Commission on Devolution in Wales

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

That would certainly be attractive in many parts of Wales. Of course, in Scotland, that is precisely what is available.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the Secretary of State elaborate a little on the case-by-case process for establishing new taxes to which he referred earlier? He and I served on the Welsh Affairs Committee. I hope that he is not proposing the ghoulish resurrection of the legislative competence order process.

[Mr Jones]

Certainly not. I would imagine that, in most cases, those would be issues for negotiation between the Welsh Finance Department and the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman engages closely with his constituents and will know there is general dissatisfaction with the current settlement in Europe. We think our position in Europe should be renegotiated, and it is right to take sufficient time over that negotiation. At the end of that period, by 2017, we will put the issue of whether Britain should be a member of the European Union to the people of this country in an in/out referendum.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

All constituent parts of the UK ran trade surpluses in 2012—all except England. That puts paid to the caricature of Welsh business as failing in some way, and the surplus from Wales was £5 billion in 2012. What can be done to encourage micro-businesses such as those in my constituency to understand the value of exports and the opportunities they offer in the face of austerity from this Government, and indifference and incompetence from the Government in Cardiff?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Welsh businesses have been successful, but we want them to be even more successful. I therefore encourage Welsh businesses of whatever size to engage closely with UKTI, which as I said has global reach and is in the best position to maximise opportunities throughout the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I met representatives of Network Rail earlier this month to discuss their plans for the rail network in Wales, including the re-signalling programme. The north Wales main line is due to be re-signalled commencing in 2015 as part of the Wales route modernisation programme.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

14. How much of the £9.4 billion that is going to be spent on rail infrastructure to 2019 will be spent in north Wales?

[Mr Jones]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I am already holding discussions with the Welsh Government and local authorities in north Wales with a view to exploring the possibility of electrifying the north Wales railway line—105 miles, and an enormous economic benefit for north Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

As my hon. Friend says, the Government have made available a total of £56.9 million to help bring superfast broadband to Wales. The Welsh Government are working with Broadband Delivery UK on how best to employ the funding, but we are indeed looking to the Welsh Government to make an announcement as to their contribution to speed up the process. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will be pleased with the announcement by BT last December that 33 rural communities will have access to faster broadband by this summer, including Aberystwyth.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The South Wales chamber of commerce has called for a more ambitious target for broadband speeds in Wales for 2015, at 50 megabits per second from the previous target of 30. What are the Government doing here, in conjunction with the Welsh Government, to achieve such a target, which could clearly be very beneficial for Welsh business?

[Mr Jones]

It would indeed be beneficial, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that in the Budget a sum of £12 million was made available to help transform Cardiff into a super-connected city, which should result in speeds of between 60 and 100 megabits per second—plus, of course, wi-fi connectivity.

[Hywel Williams]

Cardiff is not Wales, although some people might be under that misapprehension. Countries such as Finland and Malta have introduced a universal service obligation on internet coverage and connections similar to that for the postal service, to ensure that everybody has equal access to the internet and its advantages, irrespective of location, be that rural or otherwise. Will the Government look into that, and do so in time for the next communications Bill—or perhaps it is something that the Welsh Government can do under the powers set out in part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006?

[Mr Jones]

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman: Cardiff is not Wales, but he referred specifically to the South Wales chamber of commerce. Indeed, as he knows, it is the ambition of this Government to ensure that superfast broadband is rolled out throughout the United Kingdom by the end of this Parliament, and at the moment we are on track.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Rather than setting up a consumer mutual, which raises concerns about accountability to all the people of Wales, will the Government consider the utility of transferring responsibility for all railways in Wales to the directly democratic body, namely the Welsh Government and Assembly?

[Mr Jones]

That is not currently on the agenda, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his representations to the Silk commission.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The Government are very supportive of the Welsh Government’s introduction of the anti-human trafficking co-ordinator for Wales. He works closely with the UK Human Trafficking Centre and I am sure that he will make his own strong representations in that regard.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the Minister accept that there has long been concern about the staffing levels at Holyhead, which is the premier port between Ireland and Wales, and between Ireland and the UK? Will he assure the House that immigration and security staffing levels will be maintained at a proper level?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I raised in opposition. Holyhead is an extremely important port and the Wales Office co-ordinates closely with the Home Office on that issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency interest in this regard. As he rightly says, there is a consultation going on, which ends on 23 December. Although the reference date is indeed 12 December, that is subject to consultation.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Antur Nantlle community business group in my constituency has well developed plans for a hydroelectric scheme that will benefit the environment as well as provide an income stream for the venture, but it is concerned that any future change in the tariff will undermine the financial basis of the scheme. What can the Wales Office do to ensure that this example of the big society in action is not jeopardised by the Government’s actions?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Like my hon. Friend, I commend the work of the Prince’s Trust, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already had meetings with its representatives. I also remind the House that the Welsh Government have a significant role to play. They are in charge of economic development and are responsible for training, which is key to reducing youth unemployment.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Is cutting the benefits for young people in order to encourage them to search for non-existent jobs not just a cruel mockery of their misfortune?

[Mr Jones]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Work programme, which this Government brought in, has introduced a level of tailored support for young people and others seeking work. The most important thing for people in the position of those he mentions is to regain work as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have discussed the Health and Social Care Bill with ministerial colleagues and with Welsh Assembly Ministers.

[Hywel Williams]

We do not impose competition on the health service in Wales. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that patients in north Wales are protected from the potential chaos caused by competition in the health service in England?

[Mr Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the problem has existed for some time. I remember sharing a platform with him to discuss the issue of the Walton centre. Decisions affecting the NHS in Wales are rightly a matter for the Welsh Assembly, but this Government are committed to working with Ministers in Cardiff and Whitehall when health care provision for Welsh patients is under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

All ideas are gratefully received. The Government will ensure that there is a network of big society facilitators throughout the country. As many as 5,000 will be appointed in due course.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The WCVA has reported that half the 750 charities in Wales state that they will see a drop in their income next year. Is not investment from the big society bank just a matter of jam tomorrow?

[Mr Jones]

There is no doubt that we are going through difficult economic times, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Unfortunately, third sector organisations are affected by that. I believe that the £200 million that will be available through the big society bank will be of immense benefit to third sector organisations in Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

It is a matter on which my right hon. Friend and I have already been in touch with the Department for Transport, and I understand that that Department and the Driving Standards Agency are looking into possible redeployment options for those affected. Certainly the individuals concerned will need as much support as possible and I will work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that as much as can be done is done.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

What assessment have the Government made of the effect of job losses on the already unsatisfactory service that the DSA provides through the medium of Welsh?

[Mr Jones]

I understand that the proposed closure will have no impact on services through the medium of Welsh.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Yes—that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions proposes to replace six benefits with one universal credit. That will not only simplify the procedure, but encourage people to get back into work.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

With simplification, there is always the danger of people falling outside categories, and therefore of gross injustices. Will the Minister have a word with the Work and Pensions Secretary about boosting the face-to-face advice that is available from the Department for Work and Pensions, especially in rural areas? That would be a great step forward.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As he knows, the matter is the subject of a White Paper and no doubt he will feed into the process. Overall, it is considered that the new benefit will be simpler and easier for people to understand.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Jones and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Our position, to which I would have thought he would be signed up, is that votes across the country should be of equal validity. The current position is that they are not. On holding a Grand Committee, I imagine and hope that he and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), will be present at the meeting that we have convened this afternoon to put their concerns forward.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with Ministerial colleagues on the review of the economic impact of S4C.