Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand the House is in a state of high excitement and anticipation of Prime Minister’s questions, but I am sure that the people of Wales would expect us to treat their concerns seriously. Let us have a bit of order for Mr Hywel Williams.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

7. What discussions he has had on returning control of health policy from the Welsh Government to Westminster.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

None.

[Hywel Williams]

I am grateful for that reply. Will the Secretary of State ignore any siren calls there might be for the repatriation of health policy? Does he agree that this is not a matter of a war with Wales or of Offa’s Dyke being the border between life and death, and will he put the responsibility where it lies—with the Labour Governments who have reorganised health and tolerated the situation in north Wales for far too long?

[Stephen Crabb]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. The Welsh Government have full policy responsibility for health services and all the levers available to them. Full responsibility for the challenges and problems in Welsh health services lies with them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

That is a matter for the Welsh Government, but I will happily raise that point. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) underlines the fact that flexibility would create greater opportunity to try to fill those gaps.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the Minister concede that one of the main problems with the health service in Wales is underfunding, on which the new announcement on further devolution has signally failed to deliver?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about funding, and there have been many debates in the Chamber about the funding of the NHS in England and in Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) once said, Aneurin Bevan would turn in his grave if he thought that a Welsh Labour Government were cutting the NHS budget while a Conservative Government in Westminster were growing the NHS budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We are setting out our long-term economic plan for the north-east. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the figures in his own constituency: the claimant count in Hexham is down by 53%. But what is really fascinating about what is happening today is what is happening to youth employment, and I can tell the House a new figure: in the last year the UK saw a bigger rise in employment levels for under-25s than the whole of the rest of the European Union combined. That is what is happening with our economy recovering. The biggest risk to that economic recovery is the wrecking ball of the Labour party.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

My constituent Mr Irfon Williams of Bangor has been refused the drug treatment for his cancer. He has moved to England and I understand he will begin treatment next Wednesday. What would the Prime Minister say to Mr Williams and others who have had to fight on a case-by-case basis for the treatment prescribed? Mr Williams himself is a senior health care professional.

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say to Mr Williams is, first, that he has my sympathy and understanding for the condition that he has. I hope he will get the treatment he needs in England, where we are investing £60 million in this Parliament to introduce bowel scope screening in the NHS, which I think will be absolutely vital. On the question of identifying this cancer, which is a major killer, much earlier, the English NHS is performing 850,000 more operations each year compared with 2010, but the problem is that in Wales the Labour party has made the wrong decision and cut NHS spending. It did not have to make that decision, because of course the increase in NHS spending in England triggers Barnett money being available in Wales, so even at this late stage I would plead with the Labour Government in Wales: make the right decision on health, increase the spending, increase the cancer treatments, and give people like the hon. Gentleman’s constituent the treatment they deserve.

Employment in Wales

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Ruane]

Cuts have to be made, but the tempo, pace and degree of cuts, and the ideology behind them, are the key issues. These are cuts for cuts’ sake, because the Conservative party believes in a low percentage expenditure of GDP on the public sector—an issue I will come to in a moment.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am sorry, but does that not sound like trying to be a little bit pregnant?

[Chris Ruane]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has ever experienced that state in his time in Parliament. I am saying that the cuts proposed by my party—indeed, his party has had to make cuts in Gwynedd—are not ideological. They have been practical cuts. The Conservative party wants to introduce cuts for ideological reasons. It wants to cut back the state and sees the public sector and the state as bad. I do not perceive them in that way.

In the autumn statement, the Chancellor said that he wants to see the percentage spent by the state come down to 35% of GDP. His own creation, the Office for Budget Responsibility, said that, if he did that, public sector spending would be at its lowest since the 1930s, before the establishment of the national health service—we spend £115 billion on the NHS, yet the Chancellor wants to take us back to the 1930s. His vision for the UK economy and our society is “The Road to Wigan Pier” and “Love on the Dole”. It is not a vision I share, or one that the Labour party shares; I dare say Plaid Cymru does not share that vision either. It is a dark, bleak vision, offering no hope. The British public, especially in those areas that rely on public sector jobs, will reject the Chancellor’s vision.

Although one faced the effects of recession and the other the effects of war, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Government of the 1930s and the Labour Government of the 1940s knew that investment and capital projects were the key to recovery and growth. The Labour Welsh Government are heeding the lessons of history and have implemented a huge capital building programme in the Vale of Clwyd. They have invested £100 million in refurbishing ysbyty Glan Clwyd. In partnership with Denbighshire county council, they are investing £70 million in refurbishing and rebuilding schools.

I will graphically illustrate the difference in approach between the Welsh Government and this Government in just one town in my constituency—my home town of Rhyl. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the town of Rhyl had been neglected by the Labour Welsh Government and the local authority. While he was speaking those words, he was closing down the Army recruitment centre in John street in Rhyl, which opened in 1914, and was closed in 2014 by the Tories; while he was speaking at the Dispatch Box, he was also closing down Rhyl county court and the tax office in Rhyl, and relocating the Crown post office from Rhyl.

Compare and contrast that with the investment that has come to my home town of Rhyl from the Welsh Government. There is a £10 million new harbour, a £22 million new community hospital, opening in 2017, and £28 million is being spent on replacing the old houses of multiple occupation with decent family accommodation. As we speak, £25 million is being spent on a new high school and £12 million on new flood defences in Rhyl. Now tell me who is neglecting Rhyl.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing this important debate. I will begin with a timely reminder to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb); he is slightly behind the wave on the matter of cuts. The Prime Minister, on Radio 4 this morning, called them not cuts but adjustments—but of course, both sides are signed up to those adjustments.

I want to consider some of the more interesting facts of the matter, as opposed to engaging in rhetoric such as we have heard this morning. A key element in respect of employment in Wales is the balance between the public and private sectors. That is extremely important in my constituency, and in Vale of Clwyd, Aberconwy and other constituencies. A key element of the Government’s austerity strategy is that public sector expenditure cuts will be rebalanced by growth in private sector employment. What has happened and, in particular, how far has Wales succeeded compared with the rest of the UK?

The financial crisis broke in 2008 and the immediate impact was seen in the sharp drop in employment in the private sector in the following year to September 2009. There were 60,000 fewer people employed by the private sector in Wales in the year to September 2009 compared with a year earlier. Since bottoming-out in 2009, private sector employment in Wales has steadily increased and is now slightly higher than in 2008, with an increase of 1%. I am, by the way, using figures from the Office for National Statistics. That 1% compares poorly with the figure for the UK as a whole, which is 12%. We have done comparatively badly. Had private sector employment in Wales tracked that of the UK since 2009—the low point—and had we performed as well as the rest of the UK, there would have been an additional 43,000 people in private sector employment in Wales by September 2014. That is a criticism of the UK Government’s macro-economic policy, but also of the performance of the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff.

If employment in the public sector in Wales had shown the same rate of decline as in the UK between 2010 and 2014, an additional 12,000 jobs would have been lost. The Welsh Labour Government have protected public sector employment, which is a good thing, and it has been more resilient than in the UK as a whole, but the figures are significant for the Government’s contention that cutting public sector employment leads to growth in the private sector. If Wales had tracked the UK since the Conservative-Lib Dem Government came to office in 2010, there would have been an additional 41,000 in employment in Wales by September 2014.

[Jonathan Edwards]

My hon. Friend is giving a forensic analysis of the employment situation across the UK and in Wales in particular. Is not private sector employment growth geographically lopsided, located very much in the south-east, with the other nations and regions of the UK lagging behind? There has not been the geographical and sectoral rebalancing of the economy promised in 2010.

[Hywel Williams]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We have such a geographical imbalance in Wales, in relation to not only the number of jobs, but their quality, as the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd pointed out. We have seasonal and low-quality jobs—some part-time and some on zero-hours contracts. My hon. Friend’s remarks have several implications.

In the case of Wales, therefore, the figures show scant evidence that austerity has worked either to rebalance the employment mix between the private and public sectors or to increase total employment. The data on the balance between the public and private sectors need to be treated with caution, because of the effects of reclassification. That political sleight of hand has frequently been used in the debate on the issue. For the UK, the proportion employed in the public sector has fallen from 20.4% in 2008 to 17.7% in 2014. In Wales, the proportion has declined from 25.8% to 23.9%. That is a smaller drop, and of course there is a much larger public sector in Wales.

We in Plaid Cymru were concerned about whether growth in private sector employment would be achieved for the UK, and particularly for Wales, because of its greater dependency on the public sector and the fragility of its private sector. After four and a half years, and with an election pending, the statistics are interesting, but we must be careful because, for example, the ONS reclassified staff of RBS and Lloyds Banking Group from the private sector to the public sector in 2008, and that represented 225,000 workers. Royal Mail staff went from the public to private sector following privatisation in the fourth quarter of 2013, while further education staff in England were reclassified to the private sector. In a later twist, employees at Lloyds Banking Group have been reclassified to the private sector, as the share of private sector ownership of Lloyds has grown.

The total private sector year-on-year decline of 6% in Wales compares unfavourably with the corresponding fall of 4% across the UK as a whole. Since the trough in 2009, private sector employment in Wales has steadily increased, as I said, but that compares poorly with the UK, where private sector employment has grown by a massive 1.7 million jobs. As I said, public sector employment in Wales has declined, while private sector employment has risen slightly, but in the UK, the situation is a good deal better. The conclusion that one has to reach is that had private sector employment in Wales tracked that of the UK since 2009, an additional 43,000 people would have been in private sector employment in Wales. Public sector employment in Wales has been quite resilient, which has been a good thing.

Let us have a quick look at the unemployment figures. If the unemployment rate in Wales was the same as that of the UK, 10,000 more people would be in work. In Wales, the figure for those who are economically active is 74%, whereas it is 78% for the UK as a whole, so we also have a problem with economic inactivity. That is well known, but the point is the number of people involved. It is equivalent to 67,000 fewer people of working age in Wales either being in employment or seeking work, and that shows the size of the problem that we face. Of those economically inactive people, 120,000 would like work. We therefore have people who are looking for work, which suggests to me and other observers that the measures in place to encourage those who are economically inactive into work just are not working properly. That is the challenge facing Wales—not only reducing the unemployment rate, but raising the rate of economic activity to the UK level and ensuring that the quality of the jobs is right for Wales.

There is scant evidence that austerity has worked for Wales, either from the viewpoint of rebalancing the employment mix between the private and public sectors, or by growing total employment. A great deal needs to be done, and we are looking in vain to the two main London parties for action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). We nearly ran into each other this morning when we were on our daily jog.

Only a fool would not welcome the news that there are 4,000 more people in work this year than there were last year. Even though Wales has the lowest employment rate of any region in Britain, at 68.7%, anybody gaining work can be only a good thing. However, the number of long-term benefit claimants and long-term unemployed remain stubbornly high. It seems that we cannot talk about employment in Wales without mentioning the elephant in the room, which is welfare reform.

For too long our welfare system has been broken. It teaches the wrong values, rewards the wrong choices and hurts those whom it should help. We must offer people on welfare education, training, child care and all the things they need to get back to work. We need to offer them opportunity, but at the same time we must demand responsibility. We know that no one wants to change the system more than those who are trapped in it, such as the single mother who came to see me recently in a surgery in Islwyn who has to work part time because she simply cannot afford to go full time. More than 70,000 people in Wales feel the same way.

We have to end welfare as a way of life and make it a path to independence and dignity. The problem is that the terms of the debate are all wrong and too partisan. Knock on any door in any constituency in Wales, and if it is answered by someone who is in long-term work, they will attack those whom they term “benefit scroungers” and people who make benefits a way of life. The coalition and the Opposition are locked in a battle over the merits of their respective approaches to tackling long-term unemployment. The coalition has set a limit on the annual increases in the majority of benefits; for tax credits it is 1% over the next three years. Only today in an interview, the Prime Minister set out the battle lines when he said that the Tories will reduce the welfare cap to £23,000 if they are elected in May. In fact, he said that that would be the first piece of legislation for any future Conservative Government.

[Hywel Williams]

The Prime Minister has also said that he wants to cut the welfare bill by £10 billion or £11 billion over the next five years. The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues signed up to the welfare measures last week. Does he support that level of cuts over the next five years?

[Chris Evans]

There we go again. I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but I have just said that we need to change the terms of the debate. The debate is once again about the various approaches, but we are missing the wider picture. Every time that we talk about welfare reform, it becomes about hitting various groups in society. The major problem is not benefit scroungers, but the simple fact that thanks to globalisation—a good thing that is creating more opportunities than ever before for people in Wales, young and old—the labour market has changed beyond all recognition. As we have heard, the recent growth in jobs has been at either the very top or the very bottom. That means low pay at the bottom and high pay at the top, but those in the middle are finding themselves forced out due to what we could call a hollowing out of the labour market. When those people lose their jobs, they encounter tremendous barriers to getting back into work, which forces many families into poverty, and that process will only quicken as the years go on.

We must be honest about the fact that despite attempt after attempt, welfare reform, in all its guises, has failed. Long-term unemployment remains stubbornly high and there are still long-term benefit claimants. At the same time, we carry on debating the belief that there are welfare scroungers abusing the system, but I believe that we need to change the terms of the debate. Policy Exchange recently came up with a programme with three planks that merits further consideration. We need to build self-sufficiency in the welfare system. In the UK as a whole, 60% of households receive more in benefits than they pay in tax, so they are net recipients of state support. That is, in part, the result of the tax credits introduced under the previous Labour Government which, in an attempt to tackle low pay and to eradicate relative income poverty for children, began to support families earning as much as £50,000 a year. Poverty came down, but the problems remain.

There is still a general presumption in the welfare system that the solution to low pay and poverty is to redistribute income through cash benefits. I emphasise that doing so simply subsidises low pay, leads to low wages for recipients and does nothing to encourage progression and self-sufficiency. Future reforms must be built around the principle that income should come from work, not benefits, but that will require reforms to the scope of benefits while ensuring that family earnings increase along with the living wage. There needs to be more support for those who seek to increase their income, but that is sadly lacking from this Government.

We need to build a system on the principle of “something for something”. Although it is important to build a system that encourages self-sufficiency, we must recognise that some families will fall on hard times. Companies will close; that is the way of life and the way of the economy, no matter who is in government. In such times, the welfare system should support people and recognise the contributions that they have already made. The current welfare system does not reflect such contributions. Strengthening the contributory principle through a system of welfare accounts that sit on top of universal credit, which can be drawn down in periods of need, should be a key plank of a “something for something” system that all parts of society believe to be fair.

Employment support is the most controversial part of the system—it is the biggest bugbear in my constituency. The state must get better at helping people to move back to work through a modern system of employment support, and that must begin with an acceptance that Jobcentre Plus has not been effective for some years. Although 75% of jobseeker’s allowance claimants move off benefits within six months, only about half of them are still in work eight months later, while a third are claiming benefits again. The goal should be to support claimants into substantial long-term employment and that should be delivered by providing targeted support for jobseekers not after six months, but from day one of their employment claim.

We should also look at examples such as that in Australia with regard to building and improving the Work programme. That is particularly relevant for groups furthest away from the labour market that currently face being parked without support and still face a real risk of benefit sanctions. Those groups need a new support system that ensures that they have help for the very real difficulties that they face, and that view was backed up by a National Audit Office report on the Work programme in July 2014, which stated:

“The Programme has…not improved performance for harder-to-help groups compared to previous schemes. The Department designed the Programme to help participants whose barriers to employment mean that it is more difficult for them to move into employment. However performance has been similar to previous initiatives and falls well short of the Department’s and bidders’ expectations. Prime contractors have reduced what they plan to spend on the hardest-to-help, with support for these participants lower than for those with better employment prospects.”

We need reforms that build on the three principles that I mentioned to make the welfare state more effective, efficient and fair. That would rebuild support for the welfare state around the principles upon which it was founded by Beveridge all those years ago and ensure that all families receive the support they need to increase their earnings and reduce their reliance on the state. At the same time, it would ensure that those in need get the support they require. As we face the general election, those three principles should be the terms of the new debate on welfare reform.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

This Government have made additional money available through the discretionary housing payment to help individuals facing difficult circumstances. Only three out of 22 local authorities in the whole of Wales—Cardiff, Caerphilly and Conwy—applied for additional discretionary housing payments. The hon. Gentleman’s local authority did not do that. Let us be clear: the roots of the removal of the spare room subsidy lie deeply in the Labour Benches, because it was a Labour Administration who took it away from the private-rented sector. We are merely extending that principle to the social-rented sector.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

My own local authority runs a useful forum for local agencies to plan a response to the bedroom tax, but its work is bedevilled by a lack of certainty over central Government support through the discretionary fund. Will the Minister prevail on his colleagues to give more certainty to future funding, which would help our work?

[Alun Cairns]

The discretionary housing payment is completely flexible and local authorities should use their discretion to see that it is used in the best way. The Wales Audit Office report provides excellent data and highlights some authorities such as Caerphilly and Cardiff that provide excellent practice and support their tenants in meeting the obligations of the spare room subsidy. After all, it is about returning the long-term unemployed back to the workplace, as that offers them the best opportunities and the best prospects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The northern powerhouse represents an exciting vision for economic and civic renewal in the north of England, and it poses huge opportunities and potential for north Wales too.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

11. What recent discussions he has had on delivery of the online universal credit application process in the Welsh language.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

I recently discussed the provision of Welsh language services for universal credit with the welfare reform Minister, Lord Freud, who confirmed that the Department for Work and Pensions is making good progress with the development of the universal credit digital service. A meeting is scheduled with the Welsh language commissioner in the new year to discuss Welsh language provision for the live service.

[Hywel Williams]

I recently met the team delivering the service, who are doing a good job under difficult circumstances. They told me that the Welsh language version will not be available until after the English language version is available. Will the Minister find out why that is, and when it will happen?

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was there only last week when this issue was discussed at the Jobcentre Plus. I have also raised it with the DWP Minister. We are meeting the Welsh language commissioner to ensure that we develop a service that is appropriate and applicable, and that grows with the growth of universal credit across the whole of Wales.

Government Policies (Wales)

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

My ministerial colleagues and I are working hard on those issues, and we have also had correspondence and meetings with Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We are certainly alive to the concerns of the steel industry and we want to do everything possible to secure the future of that strategic industry in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere in south Wales.

The road network in Wales is another vital element of its infrastructure connections that businesses and communities rely on. That is why we are providing the Welsh Government with increased borrowing powers via the Wales Bill to boost investment in Welsh infrastructure, including work on the M4 upgrade. Congestion on the M4 has long been a concern for south Wales businesses, and an upgrade is grossly overdue. That is another vital infrastructure decision enabled by this Government.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that successful exporting businesses such as Siemens in my constituency would be even more successful if the A55 were upgraded from its present woeful state?

[Stephen Crabb]

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s point. Businesses in north Wales make that point to me consistently, and I expect to hear more on that while I am in Wales over the next 48 hours. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) will shortly be hosting a transport summit in north Wales in order to identify the strategic infrastructure projects that we need to focus on if we are to secure the long-term economic success of the area.

I will bring my remarks to a close shortly. I could have gone on to talk about investment in digital infrastructure and the support that we are giving the Welsh Government for the broadband project. I could also have mentioned the investment in the new prison in Wrexham, which is a really strategic investment for north Wales, along with the many other examples of how this Government are doing everything possible to create the right framework and conditions for Welsh business to succeed, and to create the jobs and wages that we all want to see for all our constituents.

I am very proud of the transformative projects that this Government have achieved in Wales. I am also proud of the people in Wales who are making those policies work to their full effect. I am proud that we have a growing private sector with more people in work and more businesses. I am just dismayed at times that the Opposition cannot bring themselves to welcome that, bang the drum and support it. We have no problem with rolling up our sleeves and working with the Welsh Government in the interests of Wales. Why does the Welsh Labour party at this end of the M4 have a mental and political block that prevents it from being a constructive Opposition in the interests of Wales?

Oral Answers to Questions

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Of course, it is a matter for employers to pay the living wage. The national minimum wage is set by the Low Pay Commission, but obviously when an employer can afford to pay the living wage, we would encourage them to do so.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

As the Minister mentioned, Alan Milburn and the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission have pointed out that under Labour’s minimum wage proposals, the rate of increase between now and 2020 would be slower than that between 1999 and 2014. Does he agree that what we have heard from the Labour party about an £8 minimum wage shows that the Labour machine is still firmly stuck on the spin cycle?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, which gives me the opportunity to underline yet again Alan Milburn’s point about the lack of ambition among those on the Labour Benches. Only my party cares about low pay and only my party has given, in the past year, the largest increase in the national minimum wage, 3%—more than twice the rate of inflation.

[Hywel Williams]

Does the Minister therefore agree with my contention that the way to achieve a basic but decent standard of life is the living wage, which would benefit 266,000 workers in Wales alone, and in the UK would slash the tax credits bill by £1.5 billion per annum? Clearly, Plaid Cymru’s policy on the living wage is the best for Wales and for the UK.

[Alun Cairns]

Where possible, we would encourage employers to pay the living wage, but the Government’s responsibility is to ensure that the national minimum wage is adhered to. It is set independently, and it is a balanced discussion between employers, Government and employees.

Wales Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

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 ---

[Owen Smith]

That is precisely the impression that it gives. The rationale, as I say, is very clear. The policy only benefits the minority parties in Wales—the Tory party, of course, is a minority party in Wales. It specifically benefits Leanne Wood, the leader of Plaid Cymru in Wales, who intends to stand under first past the post and on the list. I put it to the Secretary of State that the people of Wales will not look well on his gerrymandering elections in Wales in this fashion.

[Hywel Williams]

As we have a unified British Labour party, did the hon. Gentleman make those arguments to the Labour party in Scotland, where a Minister was elected on a dual mandate? Did he campaign to get that Minister sacked?

[Owen Smith]

I am not talking about Scotland today; I am talking about Wales. I am talking about the Clwyd West scandal, which the Secretary of State oversaw. I am talking about the fact that this measure is clearly in the interests of the Tory party and nationalist allies, which is why our nationalist colleagues are so keen to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

That is a reasonable intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I respond simply by saying that a federal approach is not a perfect solution, but it is probably the least worst solution, and it is better than waking up in 20 years and finding that we have fully fledged independence. Wales has had a slightly separate legal system; I believe that Henry VIII allowed Wales a measure of independence, except for Monmouthshire, which was brought into the Oxford assizes—we do not need to go into that now.

[Hywel Williams]

I do not want to detain the House, but Wales did have a separate legal system for many centuries, codified by Hywel Dda.

[David T. C. Davies]

You rightly told me off last time, Madam Deputy Speaker, for misusing the privilege of being called early and I do not wish to be told off again. What I would say is that I am a democrat and I recognise that much of what has been given to Wales has come about as a result of referendums. What is on offer in the Bill regarding stamp duty and land tax is not that significant. As for giving borrowing powers, I am a pragmatist and if they are going to be used for the M4, I would very much like to see an M4 relief road, so I will willingly go along with that. And of course, income tax powers will not be devolved without a further referendum. I would certainly be encouraging people to vote no in such a referendum, and perhaps for the first time I would be on a different side of the argument from the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, I recognise democracy and I recognise that he is offering a referendum. I appreciate the changes in the Bill which he has made as a result of the scrutiny by the Welsh Affairs Committee. My welcome, frosty and formal as it is, stays in place and I look forward to seeing the Bill progress through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I have listened carefully to both the hon. Gentleman’s points and the one made by the shadow Secretary of State. It seems to me that they were both taking the brave point of view—presumably, it was a commitment from the shadow Secretary of State—that if the Labour party were, God forbid, to win the next election, it would amend the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and reduce the fixed term to four years. I am not sure whether the shadow Secretary of State has consulted his party leader about that, although I hope he has, for his sake. That seemed to be a clear commitment from him. If the Labour party wins the election, we will see whether it reduces its time in office. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says that his party voted for a shorter term when in opposition, but I am pretty confident—I said this at the Dispatch Box, I think—that if his party returns to government, it is highly unlikely that it will vote to shorten its term of office. I might be proved wrong, but I doubt it.

I welcome in general the Bill’s proposals on the devolution of tax powers for the clear reason of accountability. As someone with a constituency on the border, I think it wrong that the Welsh Assembly Government, like the Scottish Government, can spend money on enticing business across the border, but are not accountable for raising the money that they use to do that. Proposals to devolve some of the taxes are sensible; it makes absolute sense for there to be more accountability.

On the issue of capital borrowing, I should say that I am sorry that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) is not in the Chamber any more. Let me elaborate a little on my short intervention on her. I looked at the “Wales Bill: Financial Empowerment and Accountability” paper that the Government laid before the House. It is a strange plot, to use the word of the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), that is published and laid before Parliament; I thought plots were conducted in secret, but obviously things have changed.

The paper seems clear: it sets the statutory capital borrowing limit at £500 million. That is linked to the £200 million or so of revenue that is initially being devolved. The limit is higher than if it had been set solely by reference to the same tax borrowing ratio that applies to Scotland. In Scotland, there is a £5 billion responsibility for tax revenues, but only a £2.2 billion capital borrowing limit. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had used the same limit in Wales, there would have been a £100 million capital borrowing limit instead of a £500 million one.

My right hon. Friend has met the challenge to show his workings, which were in the paper presented to the House and available to all Members before this debate. He has clearly set out how the Government reached the £500 million limit. As my hon. Friend the Select Committee Chairman said, the limit was increased to £500 million to allow the Welsh Government to proceed with improvements to the M4, should they choose to, in advance of that element of income tax being devolved. The Government judged that such borrowing was affordable for both the Welsh Government and in relation to the UK’s overall position. That seems a sensible position, which has been transparently laid out in the paper.

[Hywel Williams]

For the sake of completeness, I should say that a Treasury Minister gave the same evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. As the hon. Gentleman says, it would be a strange plot that advertised itself so comprehensively.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for that point, which shows that the Government position is joined up across not just the Wales Office but the Treasury. The right hon. Member for Neath showed an astonishing lack of trust in the Treasury led by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, whose excellent recent Budget cut taxes for those on modest incomes. The Labour party voted against those—against the fuel duty cut and the tax cuts for modest earners. I find that surprising.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

The Labour party had in its previous general election manifesto a commitment on modifying the Barnett formula, with the introduction of fair funding and a floor. That is currently Labour’s policy, and I have every confidence that it will be taken forward.

Given the possibility of a referendum on the income tax powers—although that is not very likely—it is rather disappointing that the Government have not learned lessons from previous experience of referendums across the UK, especially in Wales. The Electoral Commission has made the valid point that we need to learn one lesson, in particular, from the previous referendum on whether the Assembly should have law-making powers, when there was no coherent, registered no campaign and therefore there could not be a registered yes campaign. As a result, we did not have the kind of debate on the Assembly’s powers that we should have had, and that is partly why we had such a relatively low turnout. I am slightly concerned that the Government have not learned that lesson and have not reflected it in their legislative proposals.

[Hywel Williams]

I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was very disappointed that the no campaign did not organise sufficiently last time. The question about the referendum that I have asked a number of times is how on earth we formulate a question about lockstep, because given that, with all due respect, many hon. Members, and even right hon. Members, might not quite understand it, I do not know how we are going to present it to the Welsh public.

[Wayne David]

That is a fair point that is worthy of debate.

Another significant constitutional measure is the electoral mechanism by which Assembly Members are elected. A number of Members have already referred to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I am at a loss to understand the rationale behind that. We live in a democracy and have to accept the system that Parliament agrees. That does not mean that we think it is right, because it is not—it is fundamentally wrong. What is being suggested in the Bill amounts to gerrymandering.

I will give a couple of examples of how the regional list system as it stands at the moment is being abused in an immoral way. There is the case of Mohammed Asghar. He was elected to the Welsh Assembly as one of Plaid Cymru’s regional list Assembly Members, but having been elected as such, then decided to cross the House and join the Conservatives. Why did he join them? Was it a great matter of political principle? No. It is said that there was a disagreement about the employment of his daughter, so he decided to cross the House and use the system.

Another, more relevant and contemporary example is that of an Assembly Member called Lindsay Whittle. Lindsay Whittle was elected to the Welsh Assembly as a Plaid Cymru list Member for South Wales East. However, Mr Whittle is also a member of Caerphilly county borough council. He lives in Caerphilly and appears to spend a disproportionately large amount of time in Caerphilly. [Hon. Members: “He lives there.”] He does live there, but he works there as well, irrespective of the rest of his constituency. I put this to the House: can it be that Mr Lindsay Whittle is so interested in the council and in his own particular locality because he wants to stand in the Caerphilly constituency at the next Welsh Assembly elections in 2016? I think that is quite likely. The point I am making is that democracy in this country is based on representation. If someone does not represent people properly, but instead represents their constituents selectively and picks out who they are going to focus on, it is undemocratic and unfair. It is reprehensible for the individual to behave in that way, but it is also reprehensible that they are able to do that under the political system.

If Mr Whittle does indeed stand for re-election in 2016, his calculation will be, “Yes, I’ll have a go at Caerphilly but I don’t need to worry if I lose because I still have the old regional list system to fall back on.” That is a practical example of this unfairness. I challenge any Member to explain to the people of south-east Wales how that can be justified and how it is an example of democracy as we understand it—it clearly is not.

[Hywel Williams]

I am slightly curious. The hon. Gentleman seems to be complaining about Lindsay Whittle doing his job effectively, given that, from what I understand, he is a councillor and he lives in Caerphilly. It reminds me of Lord Foulkes’s remarks about how the Scottish National party is going around deliberately improving services in Scotland in order to be popular.

[Wayne David]

The essential point is that this individual is a councillor representing his small ward on Caerphilly county borough council, but what about the other wards and local authorities in the region that he is also supposed to be representing? What about the other parts of south-east Wales that he is supposed to be representing? The fact is that he has chosen to represent only some people and to pursue their interests for his political advantage. That is not fulfilling a democratic mandate properly.

[Hywel Williams]

There is a well-established principle in American politics that if someone does not do their job right, they are kicked out—it is the “kick the bums out” principle. If Lindsay Whittle is not doing his job representing people as a list Member, surely the electorate will kick him out.

[Wayne David]

The whole point is that people cannot pick and choose who they want on the list. The list is drawn up by the party machines—a closed list. That in itself is undemocratic in my view. People cannot pick and choose. If people are not satisfied with the way that somebody on the list is doing their job, they cannot get rid of that person because the system works to ensure that the vested interests of elites are maintained. Most of those are in the smaller political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Many great political figures in the history of devolution will be very pleased that it is taking place. My predecessor Richard Livsey, Rhodri Morgan, Ron Davies, Lord Wigley and Lord Elis-Thomas will be delighted, although Richard Livsey is in a more elevated chamber than those in the Palace of Westminster.

Although the Conservatives did not embrace devolution to begin with, their contribution has been substantial. I thought that Lord Bourne, who was a regional Assembly Member, might have been based in Brecon and Radnorshire, but he actually lives in Aberystwyth and is now Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. It is a tribute to this Government that this Bill has been introduced, and that is to be celebrated. I congratulate the Government on moving quickly with the Bill so as to ensure that part I of the Silk proposals can be acted on in this Parliament. That shows real commitment to devolution and I commend it.

My party, both in Wales and across the UK, believes that power and authority derive and flow upwards from the people and that power must be exercised at the most appropriate local level. We have long supported a federal system as part of our vision for the UK’s constitutional future. In order to ensure that our central principles of dispersing power as widely as possible and ensuring that Wales’s distinct challenges can be addressed, we have advocated and supported devolution strongly. We have argued consistently since the establishment of the National Assembly that it should possess additional financial and legal competences. The key to that has been the need to increase the Assembly’s accountability, and I believe that this Bill goes a very long way to doing that.

It is true that a lockstep, which other Members have mentioned, will put some constraint on the ability of whichever Government are in office in Cardiff Bay to use those powers. Although I would prefer not to have the lockstep, the acceptance of the principle of giving income tax powers to the Welsh Government is such an important step that it should not be dismissed.

In their reasoning on the inclusion of the lockstep, the UK Government have argued that the devolution of power to set different rates

“could distort the redistributive structure (or progressivity) of the income tax system and could potentially be detrimental to the UK as a whole.”

I do not want this Bill to be used as a means of establishing tax competition between Wales and the rest of the UK, but we must accept that tax competition is an inevitable consequence of devolution. If we are arguing that Wales should be able to borrow and raise what it wants to spend, it should have the power to tax as it sees fit.

Overall, although I cannot pretend that I would not prefer it if there were no lockstep, under the circumstances I am willing to accept it, if it means the increased accountability and responsibility for the Welsh Assembly that this Bill will deliver.

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the lockstep, but if taxes were reduced across all bands we would retain a certain amount of progressivity. The progressiveness of the system itself can vary depending on whether the rate goes up or down, so the lockstep is not a full answer to the question of progressivity in respect of income tax.

[Roger Williams]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but that is the form in which the Bill appears, and rather than take the risk of losing the powers, my party is prepared to accept it.

On borrowing powers, I share some of the concerns outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who will speak later, on the issue of writing a borrowing figure into the Bill. In the Welsh Liberal Democrat submission to the Silk commission, we argued for borrowing powers equivalent to those proposed for the Scottish Parliament—a capital borrowing limit of 10% of the total capital budget each year, with a cap at about 10 times the amount. We also asked for a very small amount of revenue borrowing, which would be a better, more sustainable approach to the borrowing arrangements.

In addition to the Bill’s financial measures, I welcome a number of constitutional moves, including those on double-jobbing, five-year terms and the lifting of the ban on dual candidacy. The move to five-year terms will help ensure that issues relating to the Assembly will receive the hearing they deserve during election campaigns. In the 1999 Assembly elections, I stood at both constituency and regional level but failed to get elected in either, so it is not a fail-safe system. Those Assembly elections took place at the same time as local government elections and Carmarthenshire had multi-member wards. There were polling booths with the words, “Remember you can vote for two candidates,” written above them. Obviously, that referred to the local government election, but it confused a lot of electors and resulted in an enormous number of spoilt ballots, because they were not aware of the complexity of the system. I think that having separate election days is very important.

When legislating on a ban on dual candidacy in 2006, the then Labour Government said that the process

“devalues the integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public and acts as a disincentive to vote in constituency elections.”

However, in reality it has reduced voter choice and undermined the credibility of the electoral system by punishing parties for being successful. I believe that the Opposition’s often used argument that turnout would diminish because voters would be unprepared to vote in elections in which some losing constituency candidates were likely to be elected as regional candidates is unfounded. Dual candidacy is accepted by the electorate in Scotland and, indeed, for the London Assembly.

We heard from Labour’s Welsh conference over the weekend that Labour would like to see Wales’s powers brought into line with those in Scotland and move towards the reserved powers model. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues would wholeheartedly support that, but I remind the Opposition that they had 13 years to address those issues. In its 2011 manifesto, Labour made a commitment

“not to seek powers to vary income tax”.

That was a straightforward rejection, so I am very pleased to hear that Labour has changed its view and I look forward to the passage of this Bill through Parliament.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am very pleased to speak in this debate, because we in Plaid Cymru welcome the chance—at long last—to debate the Wales Bill, modest as it is. We particularly welcome the fact that the Bill is a vehicle for implementing greater financial powers for Wales. Those powers need to be looked at very carefully in Committee, and I look forward to such a debate, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). However, we cannot help but feel that the Bill is a lost opportunity to implement the full recommendations of the cross-party Commission on Devolution in Wales, chaired by Paul Silk.

I first want to reflect for a moment on the process and the time that it has taken to get to the Bill today. Following the overwhelmingly successful referendum in 2011—we in Plaid Cymru, as part of the One Wales coalition Government, had pushed for it—and realising the growing appetite of the people of Wales for greater control of their lives, as well as perhaps mindful of the growing appetite across these islands for constitutional change, the Westminster Government set up the Commission on Devolution in Wales to consider the devolution of further powers. Each of the main four parties nominated a commissioner. Eurfyl ap Gwilym served with distinction for Plaid Cymru, and I commend his work and that of the other commissioners.

The commission was instructed to produce two reports—the first on financial powers, and the second on wider policy issues. It was specifically instructed not to look at the issue of funding, namely the Barnett formula. As we have already heard, the independent commission headed by Gerry Holtham noted that Wales loses out on about £300 million each year. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who is no longer in his place, that the figure varies, but if the UK economy takes off, as we all fervently hope and as the Government certainly hope, the loss will be increased.

The commission produced a highly commendable piece of work in November 2012. Its first report was a complex package of recommendations. I use the word “package” advisedly, because part of our concern about the Bill is that the whole package has not been adopted. We in Plaid Cymru wanted more, as our submission to the commission attests, but we gathered round the compromise that had a chance to work precisely because it was a package of reforms. I know that the commission came to its conclusions after a great deal of hard bargaining.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting point about the balance on the commission, but surely it is the place of Parliament to debate and decide changes in laws, not just to rubber-stamp commissions.

[Hywel Williams]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point entirely. However, the commission was set up by the Government to look very closely at the question and it came to a unanimous judgment, but they then decided to adopt only some parts of its report. My point is that I wanted them to adopt the entire recommendations of part I of the Silk report. It is disappointing that they did not, because we can see the package of reforms that the commission came to as its conclusion.

It is also massively disappointing that the Government waited so long to respond to the report. We were told that they would respond in the spring of 2013. Then it was pushed to the summer. I remember making the point in the Welsh Grand Committee, when the Secretary of State said that spring officially ends in June, that July in Welsh is Gorffennaf—gorffen haf—which means the end of summer. We waited, and autumn came. The nights were drawing in, the countdown to Christmas began and, eventually, a full year after the commission produced its report, the Government responded.

[Glyn Davies]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech with great interest, but does he accept that moving forward with a Bill to recommend tax-raising powers for the National Assembly for Wales is a huge advance in devolution that will, if such powers are granted, transform the Assembly’s authority? Does he agree that introducing those powers in a Bill as quickly as the Government have done—we are debating it today with a view to taking it through in this Parliament—is quite a creditable performance?

[Hywel Williams]

I am indeed very glad that the Bill is before us, as I said at the start of my speech, but I am contrasting the time between the commission reporting and the Government responding. We suddenly have the Bill before us today. I certainly welcome that, but I have no idea why it has appeared so quickly; it is not for me to comment on the lack of other Government business.

I know that the term “a slap in the face for Wales” is very well used, and I hope that it will be reported tomorrow by our friends in the BBC, but I must say that to ignore such a fundamental report—as the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out—for so long is somewhat disrespectful. More importantly for us in Plaid Cymru and for other hon. Members, it is also damaging to the political and economic progress that our country can make. The Welsh Government continue to be denied the powers that they should be able to exercise—they are also denied the funding that they should have—and that were recommended by Gerry Holtham. However, we are where we are—but where are we?

Towards the end of last year, the Prime Minister swept into the Senedd building in Cardiff Bay to a media fanfare and the flashes of cameras, and announced new financial powers for Wales, but the proposals were rather light on detail. Indeed, the Prime Minister had discovered “anti-gravitas”, as I called it at the time, in making a proposal that then seemed to float away. It was not until some weeks later that we learned that all was not as it seemed. The Government had cherry-picked the cross-party Silk commission’s recommendations—accepting some, but only in part, and even omitting others.

The draft Wales Bill was published in January, and the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, was tasked with its pre-legislative scrutiny, with a tight turnaround for producing a report. I must say that I enjoyed the process of scrutinising the Bill, and I pay tribute to all Committee members and to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), for his chairmanship. Contrary to his rather fierce, if not sometimes eccentric, persona in this Chamber, he was the model of a balanced Chairman, and I was very glad, if slightly surprised, that he acted in that way.

To return to the narrative, the Government then seemed to be in a hurry, and we now have the Bill. The Welsh Affairs Committee sessions took evidence from a variety of independent academics, civil society groups and even elected politicians from both this place and the National Assembly for Wales. Interestingly, even Opposition party leaders from Cardiff graced the Committee’s sittings. That move was not uncontroversial, because the Committee’s purpose is of course to scrutinise the Government at Westminster. Having the party leaders from Cardiff caused a certain amount of head scratching, because it was something of a first. However, it indicated that this was not some humdrum scrutiny exercise of a small Whitehall Department or a minor Bill because, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), the Committee was considering part of the blueprint for the next stage in our national political development, and it deserved such a level of scrutiny.

The consensus that began to emerge was that borrowing powers were vital to allowing the Government of Wales, formed of whichever party or parties, to be able to borrow for investment to boost our economy and create jobs. However, the consensus was that the lockstep on income tax rates meant that the provision could not realistically be varied, because the power was unusable. Other than the duo of the Secretary of State for Wales and his Treasury colleague, the Exchequer Secretary—unsurprisingly—all agreed that it would be far better to have the ability to vary each individual income tax band rate.

During sittings of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I pointed out a paradoxical effect of raising or lowering tax rates with a lockstep. If we raise the tax rates with a lockstep, the higher rates are then less progressive than the lower ones: if we raise tax by a penny on the 20p band, we increase it by a twentieth, while if we raise it by a penny in the 40p band, we increase it by a fortieth. We should bear that slightly obscure ratio issue in mind. Equally, a decrease has a similar effect.

The cross-party Silk commission recommended in the first place that we should not have a lockstep. I proposed an amendment in discussions on the Welsh Affairs Committee report—I proposed that the Committee recommended dropping the lockstep. Unsurprisingly, our three friends from the Tories voted against my amendment; the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and I voted for it; but, unaccountably, Labour members of the Committee managed to abstain. Even though they have publicly declared opposition to the lockstep in the Committee, they did not step up to the plate.

[Jonathan Edwards]

How baffled is my hon. Friend on the Labour party’s position on the lockstep? The First Minister says he wants to get rid of it. The shadow Secretary of State said today that he supports it. Who speaks for Labour?

[Hywel Williams]

I remain baffled—that is all I can say. Irrespective of Labour party internal divisions and wrangling, Labour has said that greater financial powers should have been granted, but now it is possibly saying that they should not be. The Tories remain divided on the lockstep. The greater part of the group in the Assembly complains that income tax powers with the lockstep are unusable, but the other part supported the London party and was given the sack.

I referred to the referendum when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) was in his place. The formulation of the question, if we ever have a referendum, will be extremely difficult, but rather than make the point myself, I shall but quote from the widely respected economist, Gerry Holtham, who told the Welsh Affairs Committee that Welsh politicians are being asked to

“fight a highly losable referendum. Tax is not popular, and, to be frank, neither are politicians at the present time. It is most unfair, but there it is. You are asking them to fight a losable referendum for a tax power they can’t use. It doesn’t look like a high-odds proposition to me.”

I tend to agree with him, particular given the possible complexity of the question, and the possible lack of a no campaign, which has been referred to.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the constitutional expert and Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, urged members of the Welsh Affairs Committee to seek to amend the legislation so that the lockstep is removed. He has said that the requirement for a referendum on the limited income tax powers is “ridiculous”. The Secretary of State, however, sung the praises of the lockstep, saying that it could be used to vary all rates and would put Wales at a competitive advantage. He has also noted his opposition to the devolution of long haul air passenger duty, as that would put Bristol airport at a competitive disadvantage. On the one hand, he argues against a competitive advantage, but, on the other, he refers to a competitive disadvantage. That does not seem particularly coherent to me, but there we are. In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the First Minister seemed to say that he wants Wales both to have a tax competition advantage and not to have one, as expertly adduced in a telling question asked by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). That incoherence shows that the cherry-picking of the Silk recommendations falls apart. It is a whole package.

On Labour’s new-found conversion to the need for reform of the Barnett formula, Plaid Cymru has been pointing out the consistent underfunding of Wales through the block grant for well over a decade, but successive Labour Secretaries of State have assured us that

“the Barnett formula serves Wales well”.

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) is not here, because those are his words. I know them by heart because I have heard them so often. His consistent standpoint is that the formula serves Wales well and we meddle with it at our peril. I will not intrude on Labour’s private grief and confusion, and the further inconsistency on Barnett that Labour’s leader in the Scottish Parliament seems to generate so effectively and so unconsciously. After 13 years in power when Labour could have sorted the formula, it now cries for fair funding—the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) says that income tax powers without fair funding is a “Tory trap”.

Wales should be fairly funded, as Plaid Cymru has long argued, because every day we lose around £1 million in additional funding. Those figures change, as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan has said—he would no doubt jump up and remind me were he in his place. We lose around £1 million every day, which we could spend on improving our health service, tackling the scandal of poverty or building new schools. For now, the Labour position is no fair funding and no income tax powers for Wales. We know why. That is Labour’s position because it fears that, if we address Barnett, its anti-independence campaign in Scotland will be finally scuppered. Oddly, therefore, the Labour party says in Wales that we must reform Barnett, but the very same unified and indivisible Labour party says in Scotland that we must not reform Barnett.

Meanwhile, the UK Government water down the Silk recommendations to conform to their fundamentally anti-devolutionist view that Wales cannot possibly have something that Scotland does not have. As we have seen this past week, events in Scotland may overtake them all.

[Albert Owen]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman what the view of Plaid Cymru’s sister party in Scotland is? If there is a no vote, which I hope there is, in the referendum in Scotland, will he and the sister party—the Scottish National party—argue for reform of Barnett in Scotland, which could reduce Scottish revenues from the UK Government?

[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.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Secretary of State has cherry-picked the Silk commission’s recommendations on the ability to vary income tax. Because he has cherry-picked, why does he not devolve the lockstep without the referendum, and then have a referendum on removing the lockstep? That would be a practical way of moving forward, and of preserving the Silk commission proposals and recommendations.

[Hywel Williams]

That might be a way forward, but I have no idea how we would formulate a coherent question on the lockstep, as I have said. We should work towards all parties committing to a tax-sharing model in their 2015 manifestos, so that that could be achieved without the need for a costly referendum. Then in the future we could possibly have a referendum on the power to vary income tax, along with the wider powers expected as part of Silk II.

Plaid Cymru believes that constitutional change should not happen simply for its own sake, but because it represents the means to create a better society in Wales—more prosperous, more just, more equal and more democratic. That is our positive case. The financial powers recommended in the first report by the Silk commission represent some of the means to achieving that. They empower, but with them comes responsibility—a responsibility that Plaid Cymru would welcome.

Most of the debate has been focused on Wales. As a nationalist, I am pleased to quote an English Member—the hon. Member for Nottingham North again. He said:

“I start from the premise that the UK is the most massively over-centralised of all the western democracies and I find that deeply unhealthy.”

That point is about England and devolution all round—if I may use that 19th century phrase. He continued:

“I welcome this Bill very strongly because it is a step, not a leap—it is a step in the right direction.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). He is always badgering us—ha, ha, ha!—about the Welsh Assembly.

This Bill is a missed opportunity. It is a Bill of nothing but smoke and mirrors. For too long—since 1999—we have been running around having no satisfaction with the Assembly. We had the Government of Wales Act 2006, which did not settle the constitutional argument. We have had Assembly after Assembly and Welsh Members of Parliament wasting their time talking about constitutional matters. Constitutional navel gazing is okay in the ivory towers of academia, but when the cost of the Silk commission is £1 million, the cost of the Williams report is £155,000 and the cost of the 2011 referendum was £5.89 million, it is time to draw a line. This Bill was our opportunity to do that, but we have had a timid response from a Government who have never, ever secured support in Wales.

[Hywel Williams]

I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is talking about constitutional navel gazing when all I have heard from Labour Members is speech after speech about the complexities and even the theology of list membership and constituency membership.

[Chris Evans]

I can only speak from my own experience. I use the Blackwood high street test when I go to Islwyn. If I walked down that street now and asked people what they thought of the Assembly, unfortunately I would be met with disinterest from most of them. If I talked about the constitutional arguments we have had today or to anybody tuning in today, they would wonder why we were talking about the Wales Bill. They would be more concerned about health, education and transport than debating giving further powers to the Assembly. That is the simple fact.

What we see in this Bill is an anomaly. On the one hand, we see the Government lifting the ban on dual candidacy, yet they are also banning double-jobbing. It seems to me that there is something fundamentally undemocratic about the way the Welsh Assembly operates. If there is a vacancy or a resignation under the first-past-the-post system, there is a by-election. That is correct; that is the model we follow in this place. However, as the Secretary of State for Wales will know, if there is a vacancy or a resignation from the list, people move up one. That is not democratic; there is no looking for a further mandate.

There are serious problems with our electoral system. First, it is difficult to understand. People in Gwent will say to me, “Why are thousands of Labour votes thrown away and I have a Tory”—or someone from the nationalist party—“representing me, but I’ve not voted for them? What is the point in voting Labour in the first-past-the-post system, yet voting Labour in the top-up system but getting no Labour AMs?” That is the situation we have to face and we are not talking about it. When we talk about dual candidacy, I think basic fairness says that in a race of four people, somebody has got to win and somebody has got to lose. Nobody gets the consolation prize of going to the Assembly.

The most damning case against dual candidacy appears in the impact assessment, which says:

“The Government of Wales Act 2006 modified the original devolution settlement to ban candidates at an Assembly election standing simultaneously in both a constituency and on a regional list. This provision has been considered unfair on smaller parties in Wales who may have a smaller pool of high quality candidates to represent them in elections.”

What the impact assessment is saying is that smaller parties in Wales, such as the Liberal Democrats or the nationalists, might not have enough high-quality candidates to stand; therefore, we should relax the rules on dual candidacy.

I do believe it is right to end double-jobbing. It makes no sense and it does not allow MPs or AMs to represent their constituents effectively. That part of the Bill is right, but the worst thing about the Bill is that we will have to come here again in a couple of years’ time and debate the constitutional settlement. That is turning people off not only the Assembly, but politics in Wales, because all that Wales is dominated by at the moment is constitutional arguments.

And so we come to the great part of the Bill: the devolution of income tax. The Government accepted the Silk commission recommendation that Wales should have the power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum. However, they did not accept the model presented by the Silk commission, which would allow bands to be varied independently. Instead, they would need to be changed in lockstep. If the Government want to commission a report at a cost of £1 million in these economic circumstances, surely they should have included all the Silk recommendations and we could have debated them on the Floor of the House. The devolution of tax-raising powers is not a priority—we can see that in our constituency postbags every week. We need a triple test. We need to talk about the issue of fair funding and a period of assignment to see whether it is in the interests of Wales and the UK to devolve income tax.

We already know that Wales is underfunded to the tune of £300 million, but varying income tax powers will not address the issue of fair funding. Once the power to partially set income tax rates is devolved, the block grant will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the Welsh share of current tax receipts. To accept this power while the block grant underfunds Wales would be irresponsible and lock in underfunding for ever. The Wales Bill does not commit to reform of the Barnett formula either, even though the Secretary of State himself has said that the formula is coming towards the end of its life. Again, that proves that this is only a piecemeal Bill and that we will unfortunately be back here on the Floor of the House, however boring and irritating we find these constitutional debates.

If we are to devolve tax powers, there needs to be further examination by the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to see how that will affect tax rates on both sides of the border. When we talk about jobs and the economy, it is also important to note that they are being created only by private sector businesses. We should therefore be speaking to those businesses and asking how their PAYE and payroll systems would be affected by the devolution of tax, but we are not. When we are varying tax powers, we also have to bear in mind that many more people live close to the Wales-England border and have to cross that border than live close to the Scotland-England border. Nearly half the Welsh population lives within 25 miles of the English border, while 10% of the English population live within 25 miles of the other side. That is 6.3 million in total. In contrast, just 4% of the Scottish population live within 25 miles of the English border.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Opposition have very different priorities from the Government in the way that we deal with budgets and decide what our priorities are. Quite frankly, I think that he needs to do a bit more homework before he begins to make these suggestions.

I turn now to income tax. The Opposition do not accept that there is no accountability without the devolution of income tax. The National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government are accountable through elections, and Welsh Ministers are subject to the usual scrutiny procedures. Let us look at councils: more of a council’s budget comes through the block grant than from council tax, but nobody says that councils cannot borrow and that council borrowing has to be contingent on further devolution of some income tax powers.

None the less, we accept that the Welsh Government are slightly anomalous in not having the power to raise revenue. The devolution of a number of minor taxes will rectify that anomaly. It should be noted that in their evidence to the Silk commission the Welsh Labour Government did not actually seek the power to vary income tax. However, since the publication of the Silk commission report we have said that we support the recommendation to give Wales the power partially to vary income tax, contingent on a triple lock. That consists of fair funding, agreed by the Welsh and UK Governments; the power being subject to a referendum; and the power being in the long-term interests of Wales—that is to say that it should tested during a period of assignment.

We would like the Secretary of State to give further details on the period of assignment and to provide reassurances about the ability of HMRC to monitor a Welsh rate of income tax. We believe that further examination is needed of the impact of tax competition arising from different rates of income tax on either side of the border. We want to ensure that that looks at the behavioural aspects of what might happen if income tax rates vary on either side of the border.

Turning to the constitutional issues, we believe that the question of five-year terms is a matter for the Assembly. It may not be practical to table an amendment to that effect, but we want to put on record our belief that it should be something for the Assembly to decide.

On double-jobbing, we are very clear that we do not think that an individual should be an MP and an AM at the same time. It is not practical or fair to the electorate and we certainly support the ban in the Bill.

A number of my hon. Friends have referred to dual candidacy and I want to focus on one aspect of it, namely that the impact assessment notes that more people find it confusing and dislike it than those who favour it, and that smaller parties need the system because they are struggling to find candidates. It is pathetic that some of the smaller parties are finding it difficult to find candidates of the right quality. They should be asking themselves why it is that they cannot find anyone. Is the Liberal Democrats’ problem that no young person wants to knock on doors and explain why the Liberal Democrats propped up the Tories to put up student fees to £9,000 in England while in Wales the Labour Welsh Government pegged fees at £3,500? I cannot see any young person wanting to stand for the Lib Dems. Will young people want to stand for Plaid Cymru when they are worried that they might be told, “If you haven’t got two parents who were born in Wales, you can’t represent Wales”?

[Hywel Williams]

Disgraceful!

[Nia Griffith]

Well, that is the sort of thing we have heard Plaid Cymru say about whether the captain of the Welsh rugby team should be captain or not. [Interruption.] Plaid Cymru Members can shout and protest all they like, but that is what they said only three weeks ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I am not sure how the Conservative party will find people to stand for it when many of its Members are simply rubbishing Wales in order to further their electoral interests in England. It may be very difficult for the Conservatives to find people, but if they can they should not try to overturn the ban on the dual candidacy. That is the whole point, is it not?

[Hywel Williams]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Welsh Affairs

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

I will make my own speech. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such points—[Interruption.] He can laugh, but I do not speak for the Scottish National party, and I certainly do not speak with a nationalist agenda. That is the point I am making, and I will make my own speech in my own way. The hon. Gentleman prompts me, however, to mention local independent polls from Wales and the United Kingdom, which claim that some 5% of the population of Wales want an independent Wales, and separation and divorce from the United Kingdom. The question was asked because of Scottish independence, and I accept that the figure rises to 7% if Scotland were to have independence. I make that remark because I feel it is important for the 95% who want to remain in the United Kingdom to have their voices raised in this House in a proud and co-operative way.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject, what credence does he give to the views of a superannuated, tax-dodging rock star from, I think, New York these days, on the Scottish question?

[Albert Owen]

I do not know who the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but when I speak to chief executive officers of international companies, they say in private that they want stability in the United Kingdom so that they can invest in it—in all parts of it. I referred to the European Union and I am consistent on this issue. Businesses have been telling me in public, in private, and in Select Committees, that they want stability to make those huge investments to help the economies of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

It is up to Plaid Cymru to defend itself. As I have been provoked into raising the issue, I will say that it is important that all the larger parties here and the larger parties in the Assembly—of which Plaid Cymru is one—show their support. In my opinion, a party cannot claim to be in full support of a technology if its leader says that she wants an energy future without nuclear power. The leader of a party cannot say that to business leaders and then say that she supports the jobs. We need to support the development of the technology. On Plaid Cymru’s website, which I get little notes about occasionally, the energy spokesperson says that it wants 100% renewable energy by 2035—there is no mention of nuclear. That is a clear indication that Plaid Cymru opposes nuclear as part of the energy mix in the future. That will be an issue for the general election as we make progress on the building of Wylfa Newydd. I hope that that answers the Secretary of State’s intervention.

[Hywel Williams]

Tag team!

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman says, “Tag team!”, and I will come to that issue in a moment.

Yesterday, I and other Members of Parliament held an event on Britain’s nuclear future. None of the Plaid Cymru Members came, but it was attended by apprentices and graduates from Wales, who have jobs on the Wylfa site. The Welsh Government, the local authority and the UK Government have put aside moneys to train young people, giving them the opportunity to have a quality job. This policy, which is supported by parties in this House, will enhance local economies. It will benefit my area socially and culturally, as it has done for some 40 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

No, I will not give way again.

Ireland and France have done that for a very good reason: they have done it because business has been asking them to do it. There is no reason why any part of the United Kingdom could not benefit from a cut in VAT. An application could be made to reduce it, and that would stimulate the economy.

[Hywel Williams]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

I will give way once more, but that will be the final intervention, because I am conscious of the time.

[Hywel Williams]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that VAT on tourism should be reduced, as indeed should VAT on building, renovations and repairs. In 2008, ECOFIN decided to allow countries to reduce VAT to 5%. What did the Labour Government do about that from 2008 onwards?

[Albert Owen]

No request was made to me. If it had been, I would have lobbied for such a reduction. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. However, I have found—and I am sure that he will agree with me about this—that the hike in VAT to 20% has had a negative effect on spending in many areas. Local businesses tell me that. Hon. Members should not listen to what I am saying; listen to them. There is a good campaign across the United Kingdom for a cut in VAT on tourism.

One leading business person told me that whenever he takes his partner, son-in-law and daughter out for a drink, he has to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer with him, because 20% of the bill goes to the Treasury. That cannot be right. Other European Union member states are enjoying a VAT reduction, and have benefited from hundreds of thousands of extra jobs and from investment in tourism.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

No, I think that, as people on different sides of the political fence recognise, great difficulties would be caused if, in an area where most people live along the border, one side cut VAT while the other kept it at the original level. That differential would create enormous economic problems. What I would be interested in doing is looking at the economic case for a cut in VAT for tourism across the whole of the United Kingdom, or at least across all those bits that wish to remain in the United Kingdom, and retain the benefits that come from that.

When we consider what the Assembly has actually managed to achieve, we should be very cautious about giving it further powers, particularly over policing, which is what is being discussed as a result of Silk 2. Let us consider the areas where the Welsh Assembly already has complete powers, such as inward investment. Inward investment has been a disaster over the years since the Assembly was set up. We went from being one of the most successful regions of the United Kingdom in attracting foreign inward investment to being the second lowest region. There are a number of reasons for that, many of which we heard when the Select Committee investigated this issue. We heard stories about people who were set up in so-called embassies in other parts of the world but could not even speak the language of the country they were supposed to be selling Wales to, and people who were not seen or heard of. We heard stories from Brussels that, while Scotland—to be fair—and Yorkshire and other regions of the United Kingdom had been very successful in raising their profile, nobody had ever heard of anyone from Wales. At the same time we have had problems with education, which is an important factor when companies decide where to locate. I believe there is also an issue with energy, which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn also mentioned and which I shall come back to shortly. Certainly, however, the record on inward investment has been a complete and utter disaster.

Education is now a story not just for the Welsh papers, but for the national papers. The PISA—programme for international student assessment—results were a disaster for those of us who have children in the state education system, as I do, and I went through it myself in Wales in the 1980s. The latest GCSE results for English came out today. I quickly looked at them on the BBC website and apparently they are much worse than expected, although the Welsh Assembly is once again quick to try to distance itself from the poor results.

I believe there is a particular problem, which was summed up by Lee Waters. He worked, I believe, for a number of Labour Ministers in the Welsh Assembly. He is a man of many qualities, but not voting Conservative is not one of them; it is a shame that he does not. He hit the nail on the head today in an article in The Times when he wrote about the fact that the Welsh Assembly was deliberately trying to do things differently in areas where it had the power just because it could—not because it could do a better job, but simply to try to show that it was not going to follow what England does.

Ministers might not like me saying this, but if we compare what has gone on in England with what has gone on in Wales, we can see that the English education reforms have simply built on the reforms that Tony Blair put in place but was unable to carry out. I read his memoirs with great interest, and I was struck by the way in which his health and education policies were reflected almost exactly in the policies that were in the Conservative manifesto. It is therefore quite bizarre that Labour subsequently attacked our policies so vigorously, given that the ideas came from Labour itself.

[Hywel Williams]

What does the hon. Gentleman make of this week’s press reports that Labour will, if it ever gets back into government, adopt the reforms that are being promoted for England by the Secretary of State for Education?

[David T. C. Davies]

I very much welcome that, of course. It is not particularly surprising, however, because reforms such as the introduction of academies, the use of the private sector and the better use of inspections were all being suggested by Tony Blair. He started to implement them under Andrew Adonis but, for one reason or another, was unable to complete them. It is not in the least bit surprising that Labour Members now recognise that we have built on their reforms, and extended and widened them a little. Why would they want to go back on them? The problem is that we have two Labour parties in the United Kingdom. In England, we have a sort of new Labour, which to some extent recognises the need to deal with business and the private sector, if only so that it can get taxes off them in order to spend them. In Wales, we have a kind of old Labour, red in tooth and claw, that still has not woken up to the fact that the 1970s finished about 40 years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed, we do not know that. People have been temporarily blinded by such substances and have had large lumps come out on their bodies, and it could be that in the long term they will suffer even greater illnesses.

One of these groups of shops, called Chill South Wales, has a Facebook page on which it promotes its products. The most recent post is an image of four children’s cartoon characters with a range of drugs paraphernalia. We have looked at the list of 394 Facebook friends; many of them are still at school and some are as young as 12. Those young people have no idea what they are taking and no way of knowing the possible dangers or the long-term health risks. These products are just as dangerous as illegal drugs, if not more so as people unwittingly think that they are safe because they are legal and are being sold on our high streets. That could not be further from the truth.

To be fair, I think the Government are doing what they can by using temporary class drug orders to ban substances as they come along, but it is a game of catch-up: as soon as one substance is banned, another appears in the marketplace. More than 250 substances have been banned, but more are appearing at a rate of one a week.

The Home Office review is to be welcomed.

[Hywel Williams]

As a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I visited a forensic lab just outside London and was shown a selection of the drugs that had been confiscated in the few weeks before our visit. The system is now privatised and those I spoke to reported that they found it very difficult to keep up with the novel substances as they were imported, mainly from China. Is the right hon. Gentleman content that the Government are putting enough money into the forensic service to keep up with these novel drugs?

[Paul Murphy]

I certainly think that many more resources need to be put into this and we should use all available avenues to alert and warn our young people of the dangers of these drugs. Our schools, colleges, education services and local authorities must do all they can to let people know how terrible, dangerous and toxic these drugs are.

We must certainly consider giving local authorities special powers to close down the shops and I think that we should legislate to do so. Perhaps we could adopt the model they have in New Zealand, where the onus is on suppliers to prove that the substances are safe. A lot more thought must go into this.

Today’s debate is, of course, about Wales, and this is an ideal opportunity for the UK Government and the Welsh Government to work together, as they have different responsibilities but the same aim of trying to deal with these terrible things. I have worked with my local Assembly Member, Lynne Neagle, on this matter. I believe that there is a case for the Secretary of State or the Minister to contact their counterparts in Cardiff Bay to see whether we can tackle this appalling abuse. One great advantage of a Welsh affairs debate is that we can raise such issues on the Floor of the House of Commons, which since devolution has not been quite so easy to do. I am sure that our constituents do not see the distinction when it comes to the Welsh Government being in charge of health and the United Kingdom Government being in charge of criminal justice. Both Governments need to ensure that we deal with this terrible plague affecting our young people in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and his colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), for making the application to the Backbench Business Committee. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) said this morning during business questions and what the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) has said about the need to re-establish this as an annual debate on important matters in Wales, ideally as close as possible to the day we celebrate our patron saint.

This year, the promenade in Aberystwyth may be rather more familiar to Members as a result of the media interest in the storms that lashed the west Wales coast. Not just Aberystwyth was affected; Borth, Clarach, Aberaeron, Llangrannog and Cardigan all faced the brunt of the storms. I take this opportunity to thank all those in our communities—the voluntary sector, council workers, the emergency services—who did such sterling work to get us back on our feet. One Saturday morning stands out: 150 local residents physically cleared debris off the promenade to make it smart again.

I thank the Welsh Assembly Government for their response: as the Minister responsible, Alun Davies quickly came to see what was going on; £1.5 million has been pledged to the county for renovating the promenade; and Mrs Hart and Mrs Hutt have announced £560,000 for promoting the tourist sector. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I know took a great interest in what was going on. He has been in touch with the county council in relation to military support being made available when storms hit again, which has also been much appreciated.

At the time, there was much local speculation about whether funding would be forthcoming from the EU solidarity fund, and I asked a question in the House about that. It would be useful if the Secretary of State clarified whether a request was ever made by the Welsh Assembly Government to access European funds, whether the substantive fund or the regional fund. I go further to suggest that if we believe in devolution—and I very much do—the responsibility for such matters as flood protection and the alleviation of flood damage rests with the National Assembly for Wales, so should the Welsh Assembly Government simply wait for the Westminster Government to act, if they can under European Union criteria, or should they make a request? I am not sure whether such a request has been made, but either way, the resources made available by the Welsh Assembly Government to Ceredigion have been much welcomed, as, I repeat, has been the interest shown by the Secretary of State.

Ceredigion is open for business—the promenade in Aberystwyth is open for business—and like the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, I want to use this opportunity to talk about the tourist sector. We are all aware of the triangular tour made by visitors to Britain—a few days in London, off to Edinburgh, down to Stratford-on-Avon and back to London before jetting off home to wherever they have come from. Somehow, Wales is often overlooked in the tourist sector. If that is a problem for Wales generally, it is certainly a problem for those of us on the periphery of Wales. Despite our coastal path, the agri-tourism sector and the beauty of the Cambrian mountains, generating tourism is a real challenge, partly because of transport infrastructure, but also because of the costs to visitors.

That matter needs to be set in the context of the importance of tourism and the real potential for growth. Some 3,000 jobs in my constituency are dependent on tourism. The potential for growth was identified by a British Hospitality Association report, appropriately subtitled, “Driving local economies and underpinning communities”, which suggested a 5% cut in VAT for the hospitality sector. That issue is not unique to Wales, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies)—I emphasise the hon. Friend—who said that he will look at the effect of making a 5% cut across the whole United Kingdom. He is right that we need to do that, and I urge Welsh Ministers to make that case for the United Kingdom to their colleagues in the Treasury. It has been estimated that we could create another 2,000 jobs in my constituency and another 20,000 jobs across Wales by 2020. There is huge potential, but Wales of course relies on tourist industry jobs: 8.3% of our jobs in Ceredigion and 8% of our jobs in Wales are dependent on the tourist sector. There are precedents, not least in Europe, where 24 of the 28 member states have such a policy.

[Hywel Williams]

Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the extra tax take that would accrue to the UK Government from the employment of those extra people?

[Mr Mark Williams]

I have not made any such assessment, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard for the debate on VAT and tourism in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago, he will see the figures that were produced. There will of course be a hit on the UK economy in the first year, but we need to consider the gains that will accrue thereafter. I most strongly commend that point to my Front-Bench colleagues.

I want briefly to talk about rurality in general, and the extent to which the rural dimension is considered by policy makers in Whitehall. I must say that the Welsh case is strongly represented throughout Whitehall by Welsh Ministers, but the rural dimension can sometimes be overlooked. For example, accessing work capability assessments is a challenge in rural areas such as mine, where there is limited public transport. I suggest that a disproportionate number of my constituents have missed appointments and suffered penalties as a consequence of living in rural areas.

We have lost tax offices. Aberystwyth lost its tax office under the last Labour Government and is now losing its tax advice centre. Instead, west Wales will be served by a roving team of experts from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We are losing face-to-face contact and expertise on the ground. It was anticipated that VAT returns would be made to HMRC online, but 20% of my constituency is yet to get broadband.

The hon. Member for Monmouth rightly raised concerns about the health service. We have lost our consultant and midwife unit, which is something that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) will relate to. The Welsh Labour Government are much more interested in the urban agenda than in the challenges that we face in mid and west Wales.

We could talk endlessly and there are many more points that I want to make. I hope that we have such a debate again, particularly so that there is another opportunity to talk about rural Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this debate, and I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has just said.

My party wants Wales to be an independent country. We know that will take time—we just have to accept that—but that is no reason to abandon the aim. Some Members will be familiar with the Welsh saying, “Ara’ deg mae dal iâr”, which means “You catch hens slowly.” We, the Welsh, have been here on these islands for a very long time—independent for most of the centuries, incorporated for the rest—and we are not going anywhere any time soon. We therefore need to discuss this among ourselves, as a self-aware nation, and agree on what power we want.

In this context, the examples from the mainland of Europe and from Scotland are useful and instructive. Last night, I was talking to the Catalan counsel general. The Catalans have been told by Madrid that they cannot hold a referendum on independence. One Spanish politician went so far as to threaten them with military occupation if they dared to press for their freedom. So hundreds of individual communes have instead held local referendums, which demonstrated overwhelming support for independence. We also saw the extraordinary demonstration in Barcelona last year, when more than 1 million people crowded the streets of the capital to call for independence. A national referendum is due there in the autumn, and we will watch the outcome with interest. I have also been talking to the Basques. There, the peace process has made great strides, but the Government in Madrid are now dragging their heels. Getting the peace process on track there is vital to greater autonomy, which is perhaps why the Madrid Government are acting in that way.

In Scotland, to the disgust and dismay of some politicians in this place and commentators in the City, and to the delight of others, our colleagues in the Scottish National party are defining what it means to rule themselves while retaining an inter-dependence of equals in these islands and on this continent. The SNP’s opponents cry, “Foul! Not fair! If you want independence it must be on our terms.” Politics and international politics are about negotiation, as we are seeing in Paris and Brussels today. In Wales, we have a problem with taking responsibility—some of us are too resigned to being victims. I will say this for now: power to spend without the responsibility of raising the money is corrosive, as we have seen in Wales, and to the extent that the draft Wales Bill leads us to take responsibility for ourselves it is much to be welcomed.

The shadow Secretary of State, speaking as a historian, said of the decline of Wales:

“I attribute it to 150 years of history, industry, the legacy of change, the demographics of our country, the distance from London and the simple truth that Wales has a greater relative need than many parts of England, which requires a greater degree of expenditure.”—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 23 January 2013; c.21.]

That is all very germane, but hon. Members will have noted immediately that this statement contains no agency. These woes appear have been visited upon us passively— by accident almost. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is not unsophisticated; he knows full well that historical events do not just happen. So I look forward to our debates on the Wales Bill and perhaps a more piercing analysis of our predicament from those on the Opposition Front Bench. Who knows, a clearer analysis might even lead them to change their stance, which is seen by many here and in Wales as one of delay at all costs.

Commission on Devolution in Wales

Hywel Williams Excerpts

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.