Mr.
Llwyd: Well said; obviously someone is angling for
promotion. No,
it is not. It is because the system is loaded against those people.
There is a genuine opportunity to look at it carefully and, for
example, reform the forms. They are vast and are loaded against the
applicant in every way. If the applicant simply ticks the box and does
not put in extra detail, the application fails, although it should not
have failed. I know a young man—a member of the Air
Force—who had a bad motorcycle crash. He damaged his right
shoulder very badly, which limited its use, and his left leg was
amputated. He was deemed fit for work because the medical officers who
reviewed his case decided that he could walk 100 yd in the given time.
It was absolute nonsense. That doctor was paid nearly £100 for
filling in the form and he did not want to bite the hand that fed him.
I have said this in the House before now and not a single GP has
corrected or tried to contradict me. The form needs addressing. My hon.
Friend knows far more about this Bill than I but it is, I hope, an
opportunity to redress the balance—one that is
overdue.
There is
mention of training and apprenticeships—we do not know yet what
is coming—but I would personally welcome a further look at
apprenticeships. When Ted Rowlands was the Member for Merthyr Tydfil
and Rhymney he had a stock speech which he could reel off. We heard it
several times, with great respect to Lord Rowlands, as he is now. It
was an excellent speech about the need for properly structured
apprenticeships, which he was calling for 20 years ago. I hope that it
is coming because there is far too much emphasis in the training and
education system on people gaining university degrees and then
effectively doing nothing with them other than
stacking shelves in Tesco and/or trying to pay the £20,000 they
have incurred in debt. I went to university, my children did and I am
more than willing to help anyone go but, for heaven’s sake, let
us not forget that we all need plumbers and electricians in every
community. Those are highly paid jobs and we should be redressing the
balance by looking at
apprenticeships. Dr.
Francis: I am listening carefully to the hon.
Gentleman’s well made contribution. May I suggest, however, that
it is not either/or? It should be both. They are also linked. Some
young men in my neighbouring constituency are currently on
apprenticeships that are leading to mining
degrees.
Mr.
Llwyd: Clearly, I have no objection to that but I think we
need to be careful about shepherding youngsters into university just
for the sake of getting a qualification that may or may not assist them
in future. What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly valid. There will
be and there should be those crossovers but we also need to concentrate
on the non-academic
side.
Julie
Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important
to extend apprenticeships to both genders? There is a problem that the
apprenticeships that lead to higher-paid jobs are generally filled by
young males. It would be good if we could extend them to young
women.
Mr.
Llwyd: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. There is no
reason why a young woman could not aim for a highly lucrative life as a
plumber, electrician or anything else. We need to look at that anew and
make sure that opportunities are available for both
genders. Regarding
the Policing and Crime Bill, which had its Second Reading on 19
January, we were told in the blurb leading up to its publication that
there would be a new mandatory code for the drinks industry, giving
local authorities the power to ban cut-price, irresponsible promotions
in pubs and bars. That got a headline at the time but is not in the
Bill. We were also told of the proposal to introduce directly elected
police authorities, which I was against for the good reason that the
police authority is drawn at any event from elected people. Again, that
got a headline but is not being pursued within the Bill. The Coroners
and Justice Bill was described in the Gracious Speech as
a “transparent
and responsive justice system for victims, witnesses and the wider
public”
to “improve
the coroners service and the process of death certification and provide
increased support for bereaved families, including the families of
servicemen and
women.” What
we actually have in the Bill are two very insidious and disturbing
suggestions: first, that regular witness anonymity orders should be
made so that people will not be identified in giving evidence; and
secondly, that there will be coroners’ courts held in camera or
even in secret. That will do nothing for families and it will do
nothing for the public perception of coroners either. One of the three
reasons that coroners’ courts were established was to allay
people’s fears when unfortunate incidents, such as death in
custody, occurred. The measure will alienate a lot of people and make
them think that there is something beneath it.
One reason for
the provisions in the coroners Bill is that there is a huge stack of
coroners’ cases in Oxfordshire, where our forces come back to
from theatre. About 12 months ago, the American air force
refused to divulge some vital evidence to UK forces about a blue on
blue or friendly fire incident. The provisions will enable a coroner to
determine how matters proceed, with or without that crucial evidence. I
think that that is wrong and inappropriate, and I speak as a one-time
assistant coroner with some experience in the field. The law does need
reforming, but these reforms go a long way from anything I perceive as
necessary.
There may
well be a need for more centralisation in terms of training, because
after all is said and done, coroners come under local government at the
moment. From my reading of the Bill, that would remain the case. There
may be a need for training and keeping up similar standards across the
board. I agree with that, but I am dubious and concerned about these
two measures: frequent use of anonymity orders and the holding of
coroners’ courts in secret.
Julie
Morgan: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not
mentioned some of the positive things in this Bill, such as the
increased protection and help for victims of sexual abuse when they
give evidence in the courts. For example, they will be able to use as
evidence the statements that they made on the first occasion that they
were interviewed. There is also recognition of the fact that it
sometimes takes a long time for people to come forward and say that
they have been sexually abused. Both of those things are important
parts of the Bill.
Mr.
Llwyd: I hate to disabuse the hon. Lady, but it is already
the case that a coroner can rule that those statements be admitted in
writing, so I am afraid that the dynamic point she makes
is— [Interruption.] I would agree with the drift of what
she is saying, but I am saying to her that a coroner already has the
right, in a situation where there is a question of sexual abuse, to
say. “We’ll accept a written statement rather than put
that lady through any
trauma.”
Julie
Morgan: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. I am not
talking about the coroners bit of the Bill, but about the
courts.
Mr.
Llwyd: I am sorry. I was talking about the coroners part
of the Bill, so perhaps the interventions could come at a later
stage. Mrs.
Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): I had it
raised with me the other day when I was at the British Museum that
there is a lot of disappointment that the coroners Bill was not used as
the vehicle to appoint a special coroner to look after the business of
treasure trove and our heritage. Of course, that will affect people
throughout Wales, particularly our museums and those who find treasure.
At the moment, the coroners’ courts sit on that area and it
falls behind everything else. It would have been of great assistance if
the Government had sought to appoint someone specifically to deal with
it, and that was what people were led to believe might be included in
the Bill.
Mr.
Llwyd: The hon. Lady is absolutely right and that is what
I had in the back of my mind when I said that some degree of
centralisation would not be a bad thing. In other words, there could be
one coroner for the whole of Wales dealing with treasure trove. I can
tell her that it is an extremely complex area of law, having dipped my
toe in and nearly had it bitten off. The Bill should have been the
vehicle for such a measure.
The hon.
Member for Cardiff, North is right with regard to the other parts of
the Bill. Of course I welcome those points and there are good parts of
the Bill. I am not saying that it is all bad, but I have drawn
attention to two issues that cause
concern. One
must consider what the Local Democracy, Economic Development and
Construction Bill will do. There will be framework powers for the
Assembly to scrutinise local councils and for the Auditor General for
Wales. I am sure that that is fine. One problem now in local government
in Wales is the huge underfunding. With year-on-year cuts of 6 per
cent. there are to be huge cuts in expenditure by local authorities, at
a time when we should be encouraging them to bring forward contracts to
stimulate the economy, and to engage business people and local workmen.
It is happening at the worst possible time. One of the local
authorities in my constituency, Gwynedd, must make cuts of £5
million per annum for the next five years. That is a huge amount of
cutting, and one must wonder where the cuts will be made, coming on top
of all the efficiency cuts that have been made already.
There are
those who say that the Queen’s Speech was rather thin, and I
think it was. Some aspects of it were things that we had heard before,
and other aspects were included principally for a bit of headline
grabbing, I am sure. However, the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which
was mentioned this morning, is a very important Bill for Wales and will
carry wholehearted support across the board. I shall briefly return to
the points that I tried to make this morning.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Caernarfon and I met a group of fishermen in Pen
Llyn in Aberdaron. I am pleased to say that we have a Welsh speaker
from Hansard with us today, so that name will not cause any
problems. Those—principally young—people were saying that
they work a crofting system, in effect. They have farms, which are
sheep farms in the main, but they add a substantial amount to their
income by fishing with lobster pots, crabbing, and doing various other
forms of fishing. Without that they would not be sustained on the land.
We would lose more families. We would definitely not have them there,
working the land as well as they do, keeping it in good heart for us
all to admire, and for people from all over the world to come and
see.
The fishermen
made the point that they and generations before them had been following
a livelihood that is now in immediate danger because of the large-scale
factory dredging of scallops. The hon. Member for Ceredigion knows that
that affects his constituents as well. The practice leaves a trail of
destruction that does not improve for 12 to 14 years, during which time
stocks of every kind are depleted. The fishermen I spoke to say,
fairly, that we must have proper policing, as was mentioned this
morning. One boat for the whole of north-west England and the whole
coastline of Wales will not do it. Nor, I might add, will the suggested
two or three “rigids”, as they are described. A rigid is
a fairly small
boat; how those are to apprehend huge trawlers is another matter
altogether. We need to look selectively and carefully at granting the
relevant licences. Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): Can the hon. Gentleman
say where those scallop dredgers come
from?
Mr.
Llwyd: Some come down from Scotland. Some cross the
channel; they come from all over, but in the main they are licensed.
Surely if they are licensed we can and must control the activity. The
point has been well made. The Secretary of State heard the discussion
this morning and I am sure he will be mindful of it when further
discussions take place with his ministerial colleagues in Cardiff,
because it is a vital issue. Not only does it affect the livelihoods of
dozens of people in Llyn, Ceredigion and, I dare say, with respect to
the Chair, the Gower peninsula—it means a lot to the people of
Wales—but sustainable fishing is part of the whole cycle. It
ensures that stocks are properly sustained. Without it things will be
out of
kilter.
Hywel
Williams: My hon. Friend will recall the point that was
made that the limit will now be six miles, which may be a short
distance on land but is extremely far out for the small rigid
enforcement boats. We need large boats stationed, if not permanently
then most of the time.
Mr.
Llwyd: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We hope
that the point has been made. I am sure that, during the passage of the
Bill, hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies will properly
raise such
issues. There
are some good things to welcome in the Bill. I do not want to pretend
that it is all in one direction, but I would have liked it to cover
other things. We had suggested weeks and months before that we would
have liked a responsible lending Bill, by which I mean a Bill that put
a stop to the loan sharks who we all know operate more now than ever
before. I want their activities made illegal. The current position, as
hon. Members may know, is that if someone borrows at an extortionate
rate, the matter could come before the county court, which means paying
a lawyer to argue and persuading the court that the actual level of
interest is unconscionably high. It is not easy, but it can be done. It
is a lot of process, cost, time and energy. I would like illegal
lending made a criminal offence and I would like better regulation of
the mortgage market, and such matters should have been included in the
Bill. There is more call for that now than ever
before. Only
a few weeks ago, I came across a case when an interest rate of 350 per
cent. was being charged. In normal parlance that is criminal, and it
should be made criminal with a capital “C”. I know that
the first priority is to examine the banking sector regulation and
ensure that banks are in better health, but I believe that we should be
looking at some point near to
now. I
would also have wished for a Welsh broadcasting Bill to devolve
broadcasting power and funding to the Assembly, create a Welsh
broadcasting body and federalise the BBC. The King report showed
clearly that Wales
was not being treated fairly on UK-wide television. Such a Bill could
transfer responsibility for broadcasting in Wales to the Assembly and,
at the same time, create an independent Welsh broadcasting body that
would take into account the needs of Wales in the digital age,
including the need for a public and private broadcaster in both English
and Welsh that produces programmes reflecting Welsh needs and
aspirations on both television and radio. Federalising the BBC would
allow the Welsh section to develop specifically Welsh programming
within its own budget, without needing to justify it to the controllers
in London. We have said that before, and we hope that at some point it
will come
through. We
would have liked a winter warming Bill to give greater powers to Ofgem,
reintroduce price controls on gas and electricity, set mandatory social
tariffs and abolish value added tax on electricity and gas. The fact is
that the big six energy companies have made billions of pounds of
profit from energy price rises in recent years, while pensioners in
Wales have frozen—some to death, as we know. I welcome the
winter payments, but we need to add to that provision. We would end the
light-touch regulation of the market and ensure that the energy
regulator, Ofgem, had a stronger role in controlling the activities of
the companies. We would reintroduce the price controls that were
abolished in 2002 to ensure a fair market for consumers, abolish VAT,
cut costs for normal hard-working families and introduce mandatory
social tariffs that would take the vulnerable poor out of the market
economy. A further priority would be to stop people with prepayment
meters from being
overcharged. I
would have liked a military well-being Bill to promote and safeguard
the physical and mental health, and well-being of military personnel,
including ongoing aftercare for veterans. Some months ago, I discovered
that some 8,500 to 9,000 prisoners currently in custody are fresh out
of the services in theatre both in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is 10 to
11 per cent. of the prison population. It is not because soldiers,
airmen and Navy personnel are inherently bad, but because we spend a
lot of time training these young men and women to be fighters—to
do what they do in the cause in which they do it. We need to spend an
equal amount of time on debriefing them, on bringing them back into the
mainstream of society and assisting them in every way, with housing,
work, family connections, health problems and, crucially, the frequent
psychiatric problems due to post-traumatic stress. All of that needs to
be done; it is becoming urgent.
I raised the
matter with Government, and the Minister responsible is now evaluating
the need—he is not challenging my figures. I hope that over the
coming months we can develop this. We expect these young men and women
to put their lives on the line for the interests of the state, so the
least we can do is ensure that when they return they are properly
looked after. This issue is dear to my heart. We need to concentrate on
it, and I hope that we can do so in the coming weeks and
months. What
about a tax haven abuse Bill? President Obama has been mentioned. He
will introduce a Bill that will prevent companies and rich individuals
from moving their moneys out into tax havens. That is well overdue. I
do not know whether this would offend some of the voters who were
traditionally attracted by new Labour,
but it is high time to look at where we are going on that issue. People
are being taxed heavily and people who have the money are not being
taxed at all. That is not right. Anybody with any common sense can see
that that is absolutely wrong. It piles on the burdens for people on
middle incomes, which I do not want to
see. I
finish my wish list with this: I would like a bilingual juries Bill
that would allow anyone facing trial in Wales to opt, if they wanted
to, for a bilingual jury. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon has
drafted a short Bill that would do that. I have spoken about this
matter many times, and having now spoken to the Justice Secretary on
several occasions I believe that we are near to getting that provision,
which is long overdue. I think it was in 1574 that Sir William Garrard,
then one of the leading judges in Wales, said that any judge in a case
in Wales in which the Welsh language was used should be a Welsh
speaker. I am not saying that, but I am saying that there should be a
statutory right for everyone who opts for trial through the medium of
Welsh to have a bilingual jury empanelled for that
purpose. I
will conclude now because I know that others want to contribute. The
Queen’s Speech was fairly short. I hope my speech has shown that
I appreciate several aspects of it. I am mindful of measures that we
believe could have been included, and of one or two that were included
that we are not happy with, but that is the way of political debate. I
hope that we can all get stuck in with the measures that are introduced
over the coming months, especially on the economic side. I hope that we
will put aside our political differences for once and ensure that we do
the best for our constituents—those who put us here to look
after their
interests. People
are scared out there. We found out only today that a further 4,000 jobs
disappeared in Wales in November. What is worrying is the number of
jobs registered compared with the number of claimants. In Blaenau Gwent
there are 14.99 applicants for every job available, in Clwyd, South
there are 17.83, and in many places, unfortunately my own constituency
included, the figure is more than 10. Those figures show that claimant
numbers are going up but jobs are not being created. That brings me
back to where we started: it is the banks again. I hope that I will be
able to give unqualified support to the banking reform Bill once the
detail is with us. I am concerned that the first tranche of money has
been used by the banks to detoxify their assets and to improve their
corporate standing. That may well be the case, but messages came out of
Government in different ways. I hasten to say that the Chancellor and
the Prime Minister had to act. I am glad that they did. At this stage,
when a further huge amount of money is going in, I want to see what is
in that Bill.
I do not want
the Government necessarily to tell the banks that they must look at
their corporate gearing—the ratio between their own assets and
lending. That tells them to be very cautious, especially at this time.
That message is the one picked up by the banking sector as an excuse
for not lending as they should. We should tell them that by all means
they should have regard to that issue, but their first duty is to
ensure that this latest amount of money is spread out evenly to those
who really require borrowing. That is the only way that our small and
medium-sized enterprises—90 per cent. of employment in Wales is
in SMEs—will survive.
We all know of
examples where people have been hard done-by by the banks to which they
have been loyal for the last 20, 30 or 40 years. Suddenly their
overdrafts are being called in without notice or they are being given
staggeringly high terms. That is not right. It should not happen. I
hope that when the banking reform Bill comes before us the Government
will bare their teeth to the banking sector and tell them that this
latest amount of money is for this purpose and this purpose only. That
is the only way to kick-start our economy. I am looking forward to
working constructively with everybody to that end. I hope we can all
put aside our political differences in the interests of the people of
Wales and
beyond. 2.47
pm
| 
