Queen's Speech

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Martin Caton  , †Albert Owen 

† Bebb, Guto (Aberconwy) (Con) 

Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab) 

Bryant, Chris (Rhondda) (Lab) 

† Buckland, Mr Robert (South Swindon) (Con) 

† Cairns, Alun (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) 

Caton, Martin (Gower) (Lab) 

† Clwyd, Ann (Cynon Valley) (Lab) 

† Crabb, Stephen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales)  

David, Wayne (Caerphilly) (Lab) 

Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) (Con) 

Davies, Geraint (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) 

† Davies, Glyn (Montgomeryshire) (Con) 

Doughty, Stephen (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) 

† Edwards, Jonathan (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC) 

† Evans, Chris (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) 

Evans, Jonathan (Cardiff North) (Con) 

Flynn, Paul (Newport West) (Lab) 

† Francis, Dr Hywel (Aberavon) (Lab) 

† Griffith, Nia (Llanelli) (Lab) 

Hain, Mr Peter (Neath) (Lab) 

† Hanson, Mr David (Delyn) (Lab) 

Hart, Simon (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) 

Havard, Mr Dai (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) 

Irranca-Davies, Huw (Ogmore) (Lab) 

James, Mrs Siân C. (Swansea East) (Lab) 

† Jones, Mr David (Secretary of State for Wales)  

Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab) 

Kawczynski, Daniel (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) 

† Llwyd, Mr Elfyn (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) 

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham) (Lab) 

Moon, Mrs Madeleine (Bridgend) (Lab) 

† Morden, Jessica (Newport East) (Lab) 

† Morris, David (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) 

† Mosley, Stephen (City of Chester) (Con) 

† Murphy, Paul (Torfaen) (Lab) 

Owen, Albert (Ynys Môn) (Lab) 

† Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab) 

† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) 

† Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) 

† Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) 

† Williams, Hywel (Arfon) (PC) 

† Williams, Mr Mark (Ceredigion) (LD) 

† Williams, Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD) 

Willott, Jenny (Cardiff Central) (LD) 

Steven Mark, John-Paul Flaherty, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Welsh Grand Committee 

Wednesday 12 June 2013  

(Afternoon)  

[Albert Owen in the Chair] 

Queen’s Speech

2 pm 

Question again proposed,  

That the Committee has considered the matter of the Government’s Legislative Programme as outlined in the Queen’s Speech as it relates to Wales. 

The Chair:  Before I call Guto Bebb, I wish to say that 10 speakers have indicated that they wish to catch my eye. Before the wind-ups, there will be 100 minutes, so Members can do the maths. 

Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con):  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. Before I restart my speech, I wish to state that due to other meetings this afternoon I will have to leave after my brief comments. I hope that the Committee will forgive me. 

This morning, I said that key to the Queen’s Speech were the significant and far-reaching changes to the pension system, which have, from what I can gather, been welcomed across the House. The single-tier pension will be a boost to the savings culture, which is necessary, and will ensure that no one who is saving for their retirement will be worse off by doing the right thing. That is a key part of what the Government have attempted to do. In all Government activity we try to ensure that people who do the right thing by themselves are not punished by the state. 

Creating the single-tier pension is crucial, because time and again I have seen people, often in small businesses, who save towards retirement and end up with a very small pension pot, which is dwarfed by anything in the public sector. They are penalised for having made an effort to save towards retirement. The single-tier rate will allow people to save for retirement knowing full well that every penny they put in the pot will be for their own benefit. 

There is no denying that in a constituency such as mine in north Wales, where self-employment and small businesses are crucial, the ability to save for a decent retirement will be made much simpler by the changes. It is clear that our welfare reforms are trying to ensure that work pays for people of working age, but just as important is the fact that our changes to the pension system are an attempt to ensure that saving also pays, and that should be welcomed. 

We often hear that as there is a coalition, there are many divisions in the Government, but the fact that the coalition has enabled the Pensions Minister, who is a Liberal Democrat, to be a part of Government is something we should all welcome. To watch his performance as he has been debating the issue is to see someone who knows the subject inside out. The Secretary of State

might make noises, but the truth of the matter is that the Pensions Minister is an individual who understands his subject and is passionate about it, and if nothing else comes from the coalition, the fact is that we are being brave in relation to welfare reform and pension changes. Those far-reaching changes can be contrasted with the very little that was done in those areas during the 13 years of Labour Government. 

I want briefly to touch upon another issue from the Queen’s Speech. The welcome changes to employers’ national insurance contributions will also be beneficial to small businesses in my constituency and, I would argue, throughout Wales. My constituency is unique in north Wales in that it has comparatively low dependence on public sector employment because of the significant tourism industry in coastal towns such as Llandudno and Conwy, and in areas of Snowdonia such as Betws-y-Coed. Small businesses there will benefit directly from the change, because a decision to employ staff will not necessarily be penalised in the expectation that they will have to pay employers’ national insurance contributions on their behalf. That is a positive change, which is also welcomed by the Opposition Front-Bench team. It is sensible that both sides of the House recognise that in difficult financial times such changes will be beneficial to small businesses, and to their confidence to move forward and employ staff. 

The employment figures were announced this morning, and I am delighted that the situation in my constituency has again improved. We still have 1,000 people unemployed in Aberconwy, and that is 1,000 too many, but the figures are going in the right direction, and the boost to the confidence of potential small businesses should be welcomed. The measure displays a commitment to ensuring that people who make the right decisions to grow their businesses, and who want to see them contributing to their communities and localities, can confidently employ staff without feeling that they are being penalised. That will have a significant positive impact on the economy of a constituency such as mine. 

We should be proud of that movement away from dependence on the state to create jobs. This morning the comment was made that the Labour Government created jobs. The truth is that the Labour Government, or any other Government, for that matter, do not create jobs. They simply use taxpayers’ money to sustain positions. That taxpayer money will not be available without a strong, vibrant private sector. The growth that there has been in private sector employment should be welcome. The more people who are employed in the private sector—the more vibrant it is—the more taxes can be collected. Those taxes can then sustain a public sector that is necessary and important but which should never dominate the economy of any part of the UK, least of all Wales. 

There are a few other things from the Queen’s Speech that I welcome, and several have been touched on by colleagues. We should warmly welcome the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. We have heard a lot of talk in the Committee about the potential for a new prison in north Wales. That is something I welcome. I believe it is necessary. It is wrong that we send people over the border to be imprisoned. Welsh language provision is also important, and that can be dealt with by a prison in north Wales. 

However, a lot can also be done by way of rehabilitation to ensure that people do not end up in prison, and certainly that they do not go back there. It is very welcome that the Bill includes provision to ensure that, for example, offenders with sentences of less than a year are given probation service support. I was recently at the offices of the probation service in north Wales, where innovative and creative work is being done. The north Wales service is trying to make the general public aware that someone given a community sentence, or receiving probation service support, contributes to society, rather than being a cost to it. 

Our proposed changes to ways of dealing with offenders are a step in the right direction. They prove that the Government are serious about punishing crime, but that we want to prevent people getting on to a treadmill, and returning to prison because of the absence of support structures. The decision to target support at those in prison for less than a year should be welcomed; and the extension of support to people sentenced to prison terms of two or three years is also crucial. 

All in all that package of reform should be welcomed; hand in hand with the prison that I hope for in north Wales it will show that the Government are serious about housing prisoners in a safe environment, and ensuring that those sentenced to very short terms receive support to avoid becoming repeat offenders. 

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC):  The hon. Gentleman touched on justice matters, so how does he feel about the proposed changes to legal aid, which will have a huge impact on legal aid firms in our country? 

Guto Bebb:  We certainly need to look at the legal aid changes. I was discussing that with the Prime Minister only yesterday. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] The Prime Minister listens to his Back Benchers. He invites us to lunch and when an issue is raised with him he listens. 

It should be recognised that what we spend on support through the legal aid process is significantly in excess of what other countries do. However, there are concerns about service provision in areas such as north Wales, where there is a significant rural element. It is important that support should be available there. I am also aware of the need for support to be available in Welsh. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has given me responsibility for ensuring that changes to Government policy reflect the Welsh language issue. That is relevant to the legal aid changes. If we are to have fewer providers it is important that there should still be provision in English and Welsh. 

Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC):  Do the hon. Gentleman and his friend the Prime Minister concede that there is some dismay in legal circles at the possibility that people will be unrepresented in court, and that it will lead to even worse clogging up of the system than now? 

Guto Bebb:  That concern is recognised; but so is the fact that past abuses of the system must be dealt with, and that the legal system must contribute towards dealing with the deficit. I am afraid that every time we have this type of discussion, what is missing from Opposition Members’ comments is context. The context is that we

are still dealing with a deficit, which is expected to be about £120 billion this year. No decisions are easy. My view is that those legal aid changes must be considered carefully to ensure that they do not affect individuals’ access to justice. From a Welsh language point of view, we must ensure that the reduced number of providers take into account the need to provide a service in both languages. 

On the draft Wales Bill, I am surprised by the comments on the concept of dual candidature. If somebody is fighting to be elected to a seat in the Assembly via first past the post, the idea that it is somehow unfair if they are then on the list system denies the reality of the system we have. I am not a great fan of the top-up list system; I certainly would not have supported its introduction. The fact that Members elected via the top-up list system are not identified by name but simply by party indicates why it is not a good system. However, I cannot understand the argument that if we have a top-up list system, there should be legislation on who can and cannot be a named individual on that list. I simply do not understand that argument. I think that it is coming from party political viewpoints within the Opposition. 

The Opposition should be aware of remarks made by several commentators in Scotland about the quality of Members of the Scottish Parliament. I think that the Scottish Labour party has banned dual candidature in Scotland, with the effect that in Holyrood, rather than having a first team of Scottish Labour politicians—the first team is down in Westminster, as we are aware—Labour now does not even have a second team of Scottish Members representing the party in Holyrood. What it has is the third tier of Labour politicians, who happened to be good enough to be stuck on a list for—what can we call it?—the additional support system that allows people to be re-elected. 

I do not like the system, but I cannot understand the arguments against allowing somebody to be selected by their party. If the Labour party feels so passionately about the issue, it can follow Scottish colleagues in banning its members from standing both at constituency level and on the list system. In 1999, the Conservative party made it clear that no candidates could go on the list unless they were also standing in a constituency, ensuring that every Conservative candidate put forward was fighting a constituency seat, knocking on doors and talking to the electorate. If that is not the case within Labour, that is the Labour party’s decision, but to ban parties in legislation from putting forward their best candidates is a disservice to Welsh devolution. 

Finally on the draft Wales Bill, I have some concerns about the concept of a five-year term. I understand that the aim is to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a situation in which Assembly elections are held on the same day as a Westminster election. I understand the concept. However, my colleague the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, who sat on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for his first two and a half years in Parliament, has highlighted the fact that only about 13% of legislatures in western Europe sit for longer than four years. We should not enshrine a five-year term in law without giving it significant consideration. I look forward to

scrutinising the Bill to ensure that we have thought through the implications of a five-year term for the Welsh Assembly. 

2.13 pm 

Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab):  It is a great pleasure, as always, to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. The Secretary of State referred to Europe this morning, and my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State tells me that between the Committee’s sittings he has been to a meeting about Scottish independence. I give one warning to the Secretary of State in his position of defending Wales. If Scotland became independent—I do not think that it will—at the same time as we decided to come out of Europe, it would put us into a perilous position, particularly for Wales, which has on balance dealt with its economy well as a consequence of being a member of the European Union, not only through objective 1 but in many other ways. 

The hon. Member for Aberconwy is now leaving, as he told the Committee he would. He referred to legal aid, and I have a few sentences on that. The rural areas of Wales must certainly be affected by changes in the legal aid position, but so will the south Wales valleys. Many firms of solicitors depend on legal aid not only because it is right to do so to give people a proper service, but because those firms would be put into jeopardy if they did not; we could find valley towns without any solicitors at all. The problem is obvious to everyone, so I hope the Secretary of State will carefully consider the Welsh dimension of the changes to legal aid. 

I know other Members wish to speak, so I will briefly address the draft Wales Bill—or perhaps I should call it the daft Wales Bill, because in its brevity, it is remarkable for what it does not do rather than what it actually does. I cannot say that I agree with the Bill much at all. The only provision for which I have any enthusiasm is on five-year terms for the Assembly so there is no clash with our elections. The rest of the Bill is controversial and, frankly, relatively irrelevant to the people of Wales. 

On candidacy, it seems to me that people should make their mind up when they stand for the Welsh Assembly. They should either decide that they wish to stand for a constituency or that they wish to stand in a regional list, because there are different types of responsibility. As I no longer hold a position in Government and therefore am not bound by Cabinet collective responsibility, I can now say that I did not agree with the system. As it is, the top-up system in Cardiff is dotty; it is crazy. Nobody understands it. It is a halfway stage between proportional representation for the whole of Wales and for the regions. If I were given a choice, I would go back to first past the post. If that is not possible, and I understand why it is not, we should have a top-up scheme for the whole of Wales so that Members of the Welsh Assembly are elected by the people of Wales as a whole under the PR system, which people would at least understand, unlike the regional system we have at the moment. 

Such tinkering with candidacies is ironic in a sense because in the same Bill we are saying to people that on the one hand, they cannot be a candidate for the top-up

system and a constituency at the same time, but on the other hand, we are saying that they cannot be an MP and an AM at the same time—there is no mention of the House of Lords in all this, by the way. Apparently people will still be able to be a Member of the upper House and a Member of the Welsh Assembly or, for that matter, the Northern Ireland Assembly at the same time. The Secretary of State, answering me this morning, said that the Government are not talking about Scotland at all. There will be a particularly unusual position, such that people who live in Wales cannot be an MP and an AM, people who live in Northern Ireland cannot be a Member of the Legislative Assembly and an MP, but people who live in Scotland, which has the highest degree of devolution, can be an MSP and an MP. I think the system needs a bit more thought, to be perfectly honest. 

Jonathan Edwards:  The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a national top-up list for the National Assembly. Is he aware that if we had had that system at the last election, we would have had British National party and UK Independence party Assembly Members? On the plus side, we would have had fewer Lib Dems. 

Paul Murphy:  That is why it is best to have a first-past-the-post system, which can provide for all those contingencies, problems and difficulties. There is another system that one could have for the Assembly. I do not like it very much, but it is better than the single transferable vote. It is the alternative Member system with two Members per constituency, which I suggested 1 million years ago, but other people did not agree. My predecessor as Secretary of State for Wales decided that the top-up idea was the answer. 

I want to refer particularly to something that is not in the draft Wales Bill—the Silk commission’s recommendations on part I. The Secretary of State said that they were covered in the spring. I think it was Deanna Durbin who sang “Spring Will Be a Little Late This Year,” but spring certainly is a little bit late for that. I do not know what the Secretary of State’s views are on all these matters, but my experience in Government tells me that there is a problem somewhere along the line. The Secretary of State rightly told us that there should be borrowing powers for the Assembly, and that the so-called minor taxes are in themselves sufficient to allow those borrowing powers to be given to the Assembly, which I think should happen immediately. The sooner it happens, the better. 

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said today that Wales is suffering because of the cuts. More than £1 billion has been cut from the block grant, which has never happened before. As a consequence, however, services in Wales suffer, and we are not doing what we should be doing to reduce unemployment—I welcome today’s news, but the figure has to come down even more. We are not doing enough about job creation, because the money is not there. That is also why the argument about the national health service in Wales is so acute. It is not that the NHS is fundamentally different in Wales, but that the total amount of money coming from the Exchequer has been reduced so drastically that any service accounting for 40% of total expenditure is bound to be affected. That is not the case in England; that is the difference. The Prime Minister does not want to tell us such things, but that is the reality. 

If we had those extra powers in the Assembly—taxation of different things and borrowing power—we could alleviate much more quickly the problems we face. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will be swift and bring the Bill before both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible. We cannot wait any longer. It is not right for other devolved Administrations to have the right to borrow, but not Wales. There is no great issue of Einstein-type political thought; Scotland has that right and, in a way, so too do councils, but the Assembly does not. That is silly, and the sooner we get it the better. 

I also want to touch on the other bit of Silk that is to come before us fairly soon: the functions, powers and services that the Assembly provides for us in Wales. The Assembly cannot really do anything about improving services or acquiring new ones without the money. Silk II, therefore, is entirely dependent on Silk I, which is another reason why we should have it as quickly as possible. 

The Assembly has appointed a commission on public services in Wales, under a former health administrator. Looking at how services are dealt with is a good idea, but it is being done in a vacuum, because if Silk decides on a change and recommends that certain public services dealt with by Westminster should go to Cardiff, that must also be considered. I hope that Silk is looking at what happens in local government in Wales as a consequence of any recommendations; the Secretary of State will have to deal with it in the draft Bill, if necessary. My fear is that if we are not careful, we will again end up with too many quangos and not enough democracy. 

Inevitably, there is always tension between democracy on the one hand and what might be termed “better administrative delivery” on the other. We can have all sorts of ideas about how to deal with that, but at the end of the day, democracy is about elected people. Whether someone is a councillor, an Assembly Member or a Member of the House of Commons, they all have a responsibility to represent the people. When the public services commission reports, therefore, I hope that it takes into account what the Silk commission has already said; if the proposal is to reorganise local government, it should be truly and properly local. If it is not, and if it does not have a commitment to the community, there is, frankly, no point in it—we might as well have quangos and sub-committees of the Assembly running the show. It should not be like that; there should be a partnership between us, the Assembly and local authorities. 

I am therefore disappointed about that aspect of the Queen’s Speech. The opportunity could have been there—as it could have been, incidentally, in the Northern Ireland Bill, which has been before the House in the past few months—but it has been missed in Wales. I do not know why the Government allowed that to occur, but in missing the opportunity we have done a disservice to the people of Wales, because they cannot be given extra spending facilities, and thus reduce the problems faced by our people at the moment. 

2.24 pm 

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con):  Thank you, Mr Owen, for calling me to speak in this debate on the Queen’s Speech, the coalition Government’s third legislative programme, and specifically the Welsh aspects of it.

I apologise to you and fellow Members that as soon as I have spoken I would like to leave, to go to the Chamber, where there is a debate in which I have a strong constituency interest. I will try to be back for the closing speeches. 

It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Torfaen. His speeches always contain parts I find impossible to disagree with—there are usually parts I can disagree with, but there is always a lot I agree with. He also always presents his arguments in a considered tone. 

So far, this Queen’s Speech debate has given contributors an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues. I want to speak about the draft Wales Bill and what is, or might be, in it. A couple of points featured strongly early in the debate, and I want to comment briefly on them. One is the overall, fundamental aim of the Queen’s Speech, which is to restore the United Kingdom’s public finances by reducing our debt, bringing down the annual deficit and generally creating more employment—there is a whole theme to what we are trying to do. 

One reason I want to emphasise that is so that I can pay tribute to the work of the Liberal Democrats. I am inspired to do that by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, who referred to the Pensions Minister, who is an excellent member of the Government, and by the negative comment about the Liberal Democrats from the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, which was amusing but unfair. The truth is that two of Britain’s great parties have come together, and they have to make compromises. Sometimes those compromises are difficult for their memberships—that is inevitable. However, the two parties have come together because they recognise that this country faces a huge problem, which must be addressed. The Conservative party is the larger, more numerous party, and it is right that we acknowledge the huge contribution that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Liberal Democrat Members have made to the coalition. I want to make that point publicly today. 

Paul Murphy:  Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Glyn Davies:  Indeed I will. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for stopping me at that stage. 

Paul Murphy:  And I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks earlier. Would he not, however, consider the point that whatever the academic distinction of the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), no one in their right mind would ever have invented the bedroom tax? 

Glyn Davies:  I am reluctant to be drawn into other issues and away from the point I wanted to discuss. I will say, however, that I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy made a good case. I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to go and listen to the Pensions Minister the next time he makes a considered speech in the House. He should then read the speech the next day in Hansard. Like me, he will be convinced that this is the right policy. 

Paul Murphy:  I would not normally do this, but I actually sat in a Westminster Hall debate with the Pensions Minister some months ago. I thought he was entirely unconvincing, as, I am sure, do the 40,000 people in Wales who will be affected by the bedroom tax. 

Glyn Davies:  I am not quite sure at what stage the scales will fall from politicians’ eyes, but I have sat through three speeches by the Pensions Minister, and think he makes an incredibly strong, unanswerable case. 

I want to come to a second general point, because it is important and it was very much part of our early exchanges. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is a complex issue. It will be a strong feature of British politics, certainly over the next four years, and we know it is an important issue in Wales. Labour Members have suggested that the attitude of the people of Wales might be different from that of people in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether that is the case. I know from contacts with the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales that there is a lot of concern in the farming community about what any changes might mean. This is a complex issue, and there will be a major debate about it. 

However, we know two things. We know perfectly well that there is huge dissatisfaction about the current relationship and the current distribution of powers between Europe and Britain. It is right that we see whether we can tackle that public discontent—that is what constituents tell me they feel—with the relationship. We must see whether we can renegotiate it so that it is more acceptable to the British people. I also feel that the British people think that 1975 is a long time ago, and they would like the opportunity of a vote on whether to be in or out; at least, that is what I have been told. The Government have tackled these two issues. The Prime Minister has said that he wishes to have a renegotiation with the European Union, to see whether we can change the details of the relationship, and then put that before the British people. That is the right thing to do, and I am still hopeful that members of the Opposition parties will come around to accepting it as the right way and that they will eventually support us. 

Jonathan Edwards:  If there is a strategy for renegotiating the European settlement based on repatriating powers, what are the objectives going into that renegotiating process? We have heard about the working time directive. Does the renegotiation include convergence funding and agricultural support? 

Glyn Davies:  That has been asked several times and I resist answering it specifically—I have done consistently—because there will be a range of issues. Even today the Secretary of State answered by referring to one issue. Well, the immediate assumption is that that is the one issue. There will be a huge range of issues on the table, and if we are going into a negotiation it seems rather strange that we would stand up in public and decide now exactly what those issues should be. There will be a negotiation. The Prime Minister is in a very good position to represent Britain in that negotiation, and we have two years plus a general election in which all the points that hon. Members want to make can be made. 

Hywel Williams:  The hon. Gentleman would concede, however, that if someone is going into a meeting to renegotiate, the participants in the meeting and the supporters would at least know what the agenda is—what is in there. 

Glyn Davies:  The negotiations will start in 2015, and there is a general election before that. I should have thought that it will be very clear during that election campaign exactly what the intentions of the various parties will be, and it may well be that the hon. Gentleman’s party will make its views clear, unless he is entirely satisfied— 

The Chair:  Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but he is discussing issues that were not in the Queen’s Speech. I know that some of his party’s Back Benchers were upset that that issue was not in the Queen’s Speech, but we will be discussing what is in the Queen’s Speech and how it relates to Wales. 

Glyn Davies:  I am most grateful to you, Mr Owen, for allowing me to move on to the draft Wales Bill, which I have been trying to do for a while; Opposition Members have made that a little difficult. 

I have to make an admission—to me, the Welsh Grand Committee is a real joy. It is a bit like a parliamentary political think-tank. One can come here and discuss issues in a convivial way with Opposition Members, and there are issues about what might or might not be in the draft Wales Bill. 

I have some concerns about what is proposed. Of course, the first issue that we have is dual candidacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy made a very good point, and it is exactly my point. I shall have to declare an interest in that I was a beneficiary of the system, in the sense that I contested two elections. I lost as the candidate in Montgomeryshire and was elected on the list, and I perfectly accept that. In all probability, it could have been the case that in another period, if the rules had been somewhat different, I would have been advised to stand on the list and not face up to the constituents. I do not think that would have been right. Looking back, I probably would have stood as the candidate for Montgomeryshire, so that I could have discussed the issue with constituents, and accepted that I would lose and not be a Member of the Assembly. That is what the Opposition Members would prefer—not for me specifically, but as a general rule. 

I cannot see the logic of having a system—albeit we do not much like the system—that insists that 20 Members of the National Assembly for Wales would not have stood on the doorstep to talk to voters, and they were actually barred by law from doing that. In general, I am not in favour of creating laws just for their own sake; a law must have a purpose. What the Government are doing in the Bill is eliminating the law; they are taking an unnecessary law away. 

If the Labour party, or any other party, does not want to have a member on the list in the constituency and fighting a seat, it can do that—it is perfectly open to the party to do that. I would expect the Opposition parties to do that, bearing in mind the comments that they are making about what will happen if the law is changed. However, we do not need a law. Let it be a matter for the political parties and the constituents to make a judgment on what the parties are doing. 

I admit that I feel somewhat the same about the issue of double-jobbing. I do not think that anybody, neither our constituents nor our political parties, likes the principle

of double jobbing—of serving as an MP and an AM—but we have to question whether we need a law that bans it. Voters and political parties can ban it, and voters will not vote for people in those circumstances. If we are going to pass a law, we must be careful about where it leads us. This is where I agree with some of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Torfaen. Why would we not include the House of Lords? Why would we just have the House of Commons? We also have members of the European Parliament and the National Assembly, and what about the local councils? That is now a full-time job in many instances. Once we go down that road, logic takes us a long way. 

Secondly, even though we can introduce allowances within the changes, they will inevitably make it more difficult to move from being a Member of this House to being a Member of the Assembly, and vice versa. We currently have a good process, which is beneficial to both sides and which increases understanding. It is something that we should encourage, but no matter what allowance we introduce to make it easier to move, such a degree of movement will be discouraged. 

The third issue is the fixed term. I must admit that I am not convinced that another five-year fixed term is something that I am in support of at this stage. There are two reasons for that. A lot of people might look at the current Government and think that perhaps five years is too long. 

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab):  Way too long. 

Glyn Davies:  I thought you might think that. In general, in Parliaments across the world, four years seems to be about right, and that was the period chosen for the National Assembly for Wales. What we would be doing is changing the position in the Assembly because of what we are doing here. The National Assembly for Wales is an important body and should stand on its own feet. If four years was right for the Assembly when it was set up and it is right now, I do not see any reason why we should change it because of what is going on here. 

Jonathan Edwards:  Will the hon. Gentleman remind the Committee of how he voted on the legislation which went through this place, advocating five-year fixed term Parliaments for the House of Commons? 

Glyn Davies:  I pointed out earlier why I feel the Welsh Grand Committee is such a joy. It is because I can speak rather more openly. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Torfaen said that sometimes the restrictions on Members speaking in the main Chamber are a little more firm than perhaps they are here. 

The one argument that I have heard is that there may be a possibility of a clash if elections are held on the same day. I cannot see why that should be of concern. If it is a real concern, the Assembly has the facility to move the election by a limited period, so that it is not on the same day, but I cannot see why it should not be on the same day. To suggest that the voters cannot discriminate between two elections on the same day is an insult to them. We have certainly had a referendum on the same day as an election in the past. We should trust the voters to make a judgment. We should not use the possibility of a clash as a reason to create a five-year term. 

Finally, let me touch on the Silk commission. Like other Members, I thought that there would be a reference to part I in the draft Wales Bill. I know that I am in a minority here. I support the creation of the National Assembly for Wales as a fiscally accountable body for the people of Wales, and income tax has to be a part of that, which is what Silk recommended. If it is not, we are tinkering at the edges in terms of fiscal accountability and the borrowing powers for the Assembly. If it is included in the draft Wales Bill, I will argue that income tax powers, or a part of them, should be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. My view is that we should do that not by referendum, but by using the next general election as a referendum. I accept that not many people hold that view, but it is mine. The Government should tell people what they stand for, take that proposal forward and act on it. 

2.40 pm 

Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab):  It is a delight, Mr Owen, to be here under your chairmanship. I have not often had that pleasure in the past. I apologise for not having been in the Committee throughout the morning sitting. I was listening to Regional Voices and patients in the London area, which was extremely interesting. I have received 2,500 e-mails in the last few months from all over the UK, including Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of those 2,500 e-mails, 20% came from Wales, which is a high proportion. 

We all have constituents coming to us about problems with the health service, some of which are very serious. I am very dissatisfied on behalf my constituents about some of the responses I receive from people who are responsible for running the NHS. Every part of the UK has horror stories about what has gone wrong in the NHS. There are very good doctors and nurses throughout the four parts of the UK, and some work in difficult circumstances, but there are also some very bad doctors and nurses. I want to share some of the experiences of people who are upset at the treatment they have received from the NHS. 

I had a conversation with the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Welsh Assembly, Mark Drakeford. I welcome his appointment. It was good of him to ask immediately to learn from the exercise that I am conducting in England. I hope that the Welsh NHS will be able to learn lessons from that, and he is willing to do so. 

I want to share one or two experiences from a woman whose father was admitted to hospital. I will not mention names of people or hospitals, but it was in Wales— 

The Chair:  Order. May I say to the right hon. Lady that we are discussing the Queen’s Speech, which refers to social care, but not specifically to health matters, which are devolved? There is no Health Bill for England in the Queen’s Speech. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will stick to social care. 

Ann Clwyd:  I talked about precisely the same thing in the House when the Speaker was in the Chair for a debate on the Queen’s Speech. I hope that you will allow me some leeway, Mr Owen. 

The Chair:  Order. I am already giving the right hon. Lady some leeway, but we are discussing social care, not health provisions, which are devolved to Wales, and there is no reference to health in England in the Queen’s Speech. 

Ann Clwyd:  But of course social care and health care are closely linked, and I hope that in future they will be more closely linked in Wales than they are in England. 

One woman said about her father: 

“No one spoke to you, no one told you anything. I can remember the first evening after being in A&E all day with him, standing at the nurses’ station.” 

The nurse was 

“on the telephone speaking to her husband and telling him what she would like for supper and what to tape on the television. I felt I was intruding but I didn’t know what was happening to my father who had seemed to have changed in the couple of hours that we had left him, whilst he was being transferred to a ward. Actually, I still don’t know, never did get to know.” 

Another person said: 

“I went to bed last night again and cried myself to sleep as I do most nights…I was with him at 10 o’clock when I was asked to leave his bedside because visiting hours were over. This is the last time that I really got to speak to him. I told him ‘I love you and I’ll see you tomorrow’…we were told that the consultant who was to do the operation had gone home for his tea. When he came back he had looked at the CT Scan and told us literally to go and say our good byes as the prognosis did not look good…they took John to a dingy side ward in the back of beyond where I sat with him for almost 12 hours before he passed away. He is free from pain at just 60 years of age but my agony goes on. I feel the hospital which was where ne should have been cared for and looked after failed him and he died needlessly. I just wish I knew when the pain will go away from me.” 

Some people write many years after an event of that kind. They write because they were afraid to complain at the time. People are afraid to complain to their GPs, about their social care and in hospital. That is very distressing indeed. 

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab):  My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a consumer rights Bill in the Queen’s Speech. Are there things that she would have liked to have seen in that Bill that might answer some of the concerns that she has mentioned? 

Ann Clwyd:  I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. There are many things I would have liked to have seen in that Bill, in particular a much closer link between social care and hospital care. At the moment, it is very patchy, depending on where one lives. We should pay much greater attention to that. 

Another man wrote to me about his mother who had died, stating: 

“On one occasion when I arrived, she said she was cold with just one thin blanket over her. I went to talk to a nurse about this and was told ‘we have no more blankets’…I was standing in disbelief, there is no excuse for patients to be cold—this was 2010 not 1910. I said to her, ‘do I have to go home and get a blanket for my mum’, she said, ‘if you feel you have to’.” 

Another man said that his mother was ignored after her operation, stating: 

“The morning after the operation my mother was placed in a chair at 8am, the call button was placed on the far side of the bed out of reach and she was left there without any care, attention, food or water throughout the day until we arrived for visiting at 7pm. Naturally we were very upset and annoyed when she told us what had happened, we went looking for a nurse and found them all in a little room chatting. When we asked why mam had been ignored all day they said she should have called them—so soon after a big operation mam’s voice was no more than a whisper, we could barely hear her speaking just sitting at her bedside, so she had no chance.” 

Another woman complained about the treatment of her father on several counts, of which she said: 

“The worst being they strapped him in a chair against his will. He had alzheimers. Everyone denied strapping him in the chair—they even suggested he tied himself in!...During the many times my dad was treated…we witnessed neglect of the elderly, food put down but not offered to patients who clearly could not feed themselves. The nurses were not rushed off their feet they stood together gossiping.” 

Chris Ruane:  I echo my right hon. Friend’s concern on the issue. A constituent of mine who had Alzheimer’s was in an ordinary ward and was placed on a chair. The chair was tilted back so he could not get off. He was kept there for days on end. A week later he developed thrombosis of the calf as a result. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend in raising these issues. 

Ann Clwyd:  I thank my hon. Friend. It is horrifying to read the letters—I do not know if that case was among them. There have been 2,500 and they are still coming. They talk about lack of social care, lack of care for people with diseases such as Alzheimer’s and concern about the way they are treated. We had a debate on Alzheimer’s some time ago, at which people read their own experiences. 

I know that a number of other Members want to speak, so I will close shortly. I have large file of examples from people from all over Wales who said that they were happy for their letters to be read out. Nobody refused my request. 

A woman whose father’s hip replacement operation had been postponed for the third time wrote: 

“I am giving up the will to live with our health service and by the time I reach 60 I will not be living in Wales as they treat the elderly worse than animals. He caught MRSA whilst in hospital”. 

She said that her father was now so stressed that 

“we have had to call the doctor out this morning,—they are killing my father slowly, but very surely.” 

I have had a large number of letters from former and current nurses and administrators. This morning, I met a former High Court judge who is now on a hospital trust and is very concerned about the situation he has come across. A woman whose daughter wanted to be a nurse wrote: 

“My daughter had decided to take up nursing as a career and started to train. She soon found out that at night it was routine for the staff nurses to put their feet up in the day room and leave the wards to the student nurses. Suffice to say that after six months she was totally disillusioned and left even though it meant 6 months on the dole.” 

A man whose father, a GP, had a severe stroke—for stroke victims there are alternatives to going into hospitals, if only they existed in the proper form—wrote: 

“He went to hospital and they would leave the food in front of him to ‘look at’. He was paralysed and could not use his arms or legs. If we were not there, he would not be fed or given any fluid. Then they didn’t pull the side gates up on the bed and he fell out and broke his femur. It was only a month later when he was in so much pain that we had to have an x-ray and eventually discovered that he had fallen out of his bed. As he could not talk he could not tell us that he fell and was in acute pain.” 

Finally, an acting senior staff nurse wrote to me about taking part in nurse training. She stated: 

“I tried to encourage these students to undertake some supervised basic aspects of nursing care commensurate with their age, experience, and level of training. I was told in no uncertain terms that they

were not there to look after people—they were degree nurses!! I had one student say that they had been told by their lecturers that they would be more qualified than most, if not all, of the people they will work with—even the Ward Sister and Charge Nurse…they had been told that with their superior qualifications they should be walking into Ward Sister posts! It took some time to convince these nurses that they had to start at the bottom and earn their promotions just like everyone else.” 

Thank you, Mr Owen. This is the only opportunity that we have to talk about the Welsh health service, and it is important that we put this on the record. 

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones):  I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I am sure the entire Committee is very concerned about what she has just read out. She is, of course, carrying out an exercise at the Prime Minister’s request in respect of the NHS in England. What precisely will she be doing with the information that she has collated in respect of the NHS in Wales? 

Ann Clwyd:  I have had a conversation with Mark Drakeford, as I said. I welcome his appointment as Health Minister; I think he has a real understanding of what needs to be done. If the Welsh Assembly requests the Welsh letters, I would be pleased to hand them over, subject to the confidentiality that the people have asked for. It would be useful to know which hospitals are most mentioned and the general complaints that people have made. It is general throughout the country rather than particular to Wales, but I am concerned by the number of letters that I have had from Wales. Given that understanding, I would be pleased to hand those letters over. 

2.55 pm 

David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con):  May I thank you for calling me, Mr Owen? It is an honour to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley; her comments transcend the political divide. 

I am delighted to see the level of engagement that we have had in the Grand Committee today, which shows the House’s respect for Welsh affairs. I have always had great interest in Wales for a number of reasons. First, I ran in Wales for the Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire seat in the 2005 general election; I was very fortunate to be selected there and I love Wales wholeheartedly. Secondly, from my name it can be guessed that my family are Welsh. More importantly, I am a Unionist and I believe that Wales is an integral and vibrant part of the United Kingdom. 

Before I start on the substance of my speech, may I put on the record my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State for his work on saving the Horizon nuclear power project? I have two nuclear power stations in my constituency and I have aimed to be the most pro-nuclear MP. The Energy Bill, with its minimum prices and contracts for difference, gives us a real chance of building more nuclear power stations, but that is useless if we have no investors. The Secretary of State’s work encouraged Hitachi to buy Horizon, which was a vital part of securing our energy future. That helped make Heysham an attractive investment, guarding jobs in my constituency. 

The Committee is considering a number of important Bills today, but I want to focus on three areas of discussion: High Speed 2, immigration and gambling.

On HS2, I am a firm supporter and I have been from the outset. HS2 will benefit the whole United Kingdom; it will speed up travel and create vast amounts of extra capability going north to places such as Manchester. 

The key benefit for Wales will be the stop at Crewe, which will enable passengers to access north Wales services. We all know that there are parts of Wales that have, at best, very slow rail connections to the rest of the UK. My hope is that, following the success of HS1—the rail link from St Pancras to the channel tunnel—with HS2 we will see a national high-speed network. I firmly believe that, once HS2 is built, we will see future generations plan for an HS3 to stations in Wales and Scotland. 

HS2 will bring an immediate advantage to Wales, but we should also ask the Department for Transport to look again at the electrification of the north Wales line. There is political will to electrify the line, and the Wales Office has been supportive of the plan, but we need to see action, not least because that would enable trains to move seamlessly from HS2 to the north Wales line. We can all see the economic benefits for Wales and the rest of the UK in having faster services to places such as Llandudno. 

On immigration, managing the number of people who enter the UK is the way ahead. We have seen all the benefits of eastern Europeans coming into the UK, but we do not have the space to accommodate everybody. Tightening up access to non-emergency NHS services will reduce health tourism and take pressure off public services across Wales and the rest of the UK. The NHS is coping with huge demand and we must work to ensure that services are prioritised to those who need them. 

On gambling, Wales is awash with adverts for all manner of online casinos, poker, blackjack—the list goes on. We cannot stop online gambling, and historically it has proved hard to regulate those based outside the UK. The plan is to force those who advertise in the UK to be licensed, to curtail the worst excesses of the industry and to give us some control over what UK customers are participating in. I am not against gambling, but the proliferation of gambling, particularly in poorer areas, is a real problem and, as gambling has increased, so has the number of payday loans; it is my belief that the two are linked. 

Overall, there are a great number of Bills in this Session that will benefit Wales on transport, immigration and gambling. I therefore support the work being done to help improve services, commend the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and fully support the Government’s programme of improvements in Wales. 

2.59 pm 

Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab):  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I want to return to an issue that I raised in the Queen’s Speech debate and recently with the Prime Minister: the safeguarding of all adults in residential care and the social care Bill. 

Colleagues representing south-east Wales constituencies will know the grim tale of Operation Jasmine. Spanning seven years, Jasmine was the biggest inquiry into care home abuse in the UK. There are 106 alleged victims, 60 of whom have died since 2005. It cost £11.5 million

and gathered 12.5 metric tonnes of documents. The treatment of elderly residents in the homes investigated was described by the police as “death by indifference”. 

Unfortunately, prosecutions arising from Operation Jasmine have come to a halt, as the key defendant, Dr Das, is unfit to stand trial. Despite huge resources and commitment, Operation Jasmine has failed to deliver justice to the elderly people who suffered abuse, and for their relatives. I hope that the Welsh Government will now sanction a public inquiry into why it failed. This call is supported by the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales and Labour MP colleagues in Gwent. 

I have been impressed by the dignity, bravery and persistence of relatives in the face of this failure. Those I have spoken to personally, or whose accounts I have heard, tell harrowing stories, of loved ones looking like prisoner-of-war camp victims and open wounds left to fester—wounds so appalling that one daughter ran out of the hospital room in horror when they were revealed. In one shocking case, a frail resident was so constipated that they vomited their faeces. 

There is no doubt that the relatives’ feelings are still as raw as their loved ones’ wounds. So why did relatives only see these wounds when it was too late? Why were these terrible injuries and conditions not recorded? Measures to safeguard care home residents were stonewalled, letting down residents and their families. In short, the law has failed to give them redress. Yet in April, the Prime Minister said that the criminal law was fit for purpose. I disagree. I have asked the Prime Minister to look again at this. The deputy chief constable of Gwent police has candidly said that if allegations of the type investigated under Operation Jasmine were presented to him now, he would not be confident that prosecutions would come to court. 

We should be appalled that we can prosecute care home owners for breach of health and safety legislation or financial impropriety, but not for poor standards of care. People do not understand how those like Dr Das can have nine of their homes closed by inspectors, but still be allowed to run others. Should not there be a fit-and-proper-person test for care home ownership? Do not we, as legislators, have a duty to ensure that elderly people live somewhere that they are going to be kept safe? As a relative said in a recent BBC Wales programme, “Week In, Week Out”, 

“I don’t want answers learnt, I want something done.” 

So what are we going to do about it? 

The English Care Bill clarifies and strengthens the law on adult safeguarding, which is welcome. So, too, is the statutory backing for adults safeguarding boards, equipping them to prevent abuse and to respond to it when it occurs. Colleagues in Wales have a draft Social Services Bill, including new adult safeguarding powers. There is also welcome progress after Age Cymru’s “Rule Out Abuse” campaign called for new duties on public bodies—we think they are common sense, but they still need to be spelled out—to investigate, report, co-operate and provide information where abuse is suspected. 

The Welsh Government have listened and included such measures in their draft Bill but we must all be bolder. The adult safeguarding measures in care Bills in both England and Wales could be strengthened, so how

will safeguarding concerns be identified in care homes and how will they be investigated in future? Age UK wants statutory backing to guidance on these matters, which sounds right to me. Currently, safeguards regarding wilful neglect apply to adults covered by mental health or mental capacity legislation, but as Operation Jasmine has proved, this leaves many of our elderly unprotected. 

Operation Jasmine also showed the nigh-impossibility of prosecuting individuals responsible for poor care or neglect. Where it is attempted, it is more often junior staff members who are targeted: those struggling to manage policies set on high, such as a manager forbidden to use agency workers to cover staff absences or coping with an owner’s cap on the supply of incontinence pads or a director’s cutbacks on food budgets. In some homes, a culture of abuse and neglect was allowed to flourish because of such decisions. I would like to see corporate accountability for abuse and neglect in the care sector. 

Social care providers have a serious responsibility for the health and well-being of many people. The Care Bill should therefore be extended to include a new offence of corporate neglect. I am pleased that my Gwent colleague, Lord Touhig, tabled such an amendment in the House of Lords this week. The measure was advocated by the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill, with the enthusiastic backing of the former care Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). The amendment aims to say to care home owners, “You cannot turn a blind eye to complaints from residents and their relatives. You as an owner shape the culture of your organisation. You cannot place profits above care, compassion and respect and get away with it.” 

I will be supporting the amendment when the Bill comes to the House of Commons, and I hope that the Government will adopt it. Like everybody else, I want our care standards and inspection regimes to be robust, so that everybody has the high-quality care that we would all want for ourselves and our loved ones. If care homes fall short, they should know that sanctions will apply and that people will be held to account for poor care, that evidence gathered by the police will reach court and that there will be full public scrutiny. Next year, I want to say to the relatives of Operation Jasmine victims that we did not just talk about that terrible case; we did something that made a difference. 

3.7 pm 

Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con):  I know that many hon. Members in this Chamber are wondering why I, as an English MP, have come here today; the hon. Member for Newport West raised a point of order asking why English Members of Parliament were sitting on these Benches. However, it is important to say that in Chester, in north-east Wales, the national border goes through an urban area, splitting communities. Tens of thousands of people travel in each direction daily to go to work, use education, use health services and go shopping. For people living in north-east Wales and in Chester, the national border might be a line on the map, but we do not recognise it in reality. We travel across the border every day. 

There are times when I, as an English MP, think that the UK Parliament and the Welsh Assembly sometimes propose legislation without considering the cross-border

situation. Thousands of people on the English side of the border might be affected by a Welsh Government Bill, and, similarly, if the UK Government passes legislation that applies in England only, tens of thousands of people on the Welsh side of the border might be affected. I wanted to take this opportunity to go through some of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech and highlight such issues. 

The first Bill is one that the Secretary of State mentioned in his opening speech, the Care Bill. I was interested to hear the speeches by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley, who concentrated on the Bill. I will not discuss the Bill itself, but I want to consider the impact on people who live close to the border. As the Secretary of State said, it is an England-only Bill. However, what is the situation if an English person and former permanent resident of England moves into a care home in Wales? Similarly, what happens if a Welsh resident moves into a care home in England? Who is then responsible? 

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that the Bill would contain provisions to include effective reciprocal cross-border arrangements. However, due to the limited success of other English-Welsh arrangements, it causes me concern. I will highlight two cases that I have had recently. The first is the result of the voluntary code on nursery places. In the past few weeks, a constituent who lives in Pulford, right on the Welsh border, came to me. This lady lives about 100 yards from the Welsh border and sends her three-year-old child to a nursery on the Welsh side of the border. When she went to Wrexham borough council and asked for her 10 hours of free nursery education, she was told, “No, you can’t have it, because you are an English resident.” So she went to Cheshire West and Chester council, but was told, “No, you can’t have it, because you are going to a nursery in Wales.” In Wales, the responsible local authority is the one where the person lives, but in England the responsible authority is the one where the child is in nursery. 

In England there are agreements for people who go into a different local authority—the authority with the nursery pays—but there are no cross-border arrangements to cover nursery care. When I went to the Department for Education, I was told a voluntary code should be decided between Cheshire West and Chester council, Wrexham borough council and Flintshire county council. When Cheshire West and Chester council went to Wrexham council, however, and asked it to organise some sort of reciprocal agreement, it turned around and said, “No, we are not interested.” As far as Wrexham is concerned, if a child is resident in Wrexham, the council will pay for it in England, Wrexham or Flintshire, but it felt no responsibility at all for children from England coming into Wrexham, so it was not interested in talking. With nursery provision, the voluntary code is not working at all—there is no such code. 

Another area in which there is a cross-border protocol is in health, which is devolved in Wales. Many Members of Parliament whose constituencies are near the border frequently hear from constituents who are considering registering with GPs on either side of the border, and they find it incredibly difficult. Practices on different sides of the border are involved in different organisations, use different computer systems, have different funding mechanisms and have different rules for doctors, so it

becomes incredibly difficult for a resident in one nation to register in a GP’s practice in the other nation. That is topical at the moment, because we are seeing quite a large number of people from north Wales wanting to register in England, to access the cancer drugs fund, which is only available in England and not in Wales. 

Hywel Williams:  The hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the Grand Committee and to Parliament, but might I refer him to the investigation of the Welsh Affairs Committee into cross-border services. The Secretary of State and I both served on that Committee some years ago, when it looked at the problem of cross-border health provision. It found that it was less problematic than we had thought and that, interestingly, more people from England were registered in Wales than people from Wales were registered in England. 

Stephen Mosley:  Traditionally, that has been the case: more people registered in Wales than otherwise. Since the introduction of the cancer drugs fund only about a year or so ago, however, we are seeing the flow in the other direction. Furthermore, a major flow from Wales to England is in hospital services. In north-east Wales, in the Chester area, there is no major hospital. There is Wrexham and Bodelwyddan, but in between there are no hospital facilities, so a lot of people in north-east Wales come to Chester to access NHS services. The figures for accident and emergency shocked me: about a third of the people accessing A and E services at the Countess of Chester hospital are from the Welsh side of the border. The agreements for funding A and E services are very poor, and the Countess of Chester is concerned that it is losing out financially, and the people in West Cheshire are losing out because they are having to subsidise— 

Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC):  I did not mean to intervene in this debate, but the hon. Gentleman is a bit behind the times. The Betsi Cadwaladr health trust has said that there will be no further cross-border referrals without prior authorisation by the trust. 

Stephen Mosley:  The trusts on the Welsh side of the border might have said that, but what happens when people who live in Wales present themselves at A and E in the Countess of Chester? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Countess hospital will turn around and say, “No, sorry, you cannot come in here”? That is a problem. The Welsh Assembly makes such rules, but they pay no regard to the reality of the situation, which is that people who live in Alyn and Deeside in north-east Wales are literally two minutes away from the Countess of Chester hospital; they are going to use health services in the Countess of Chester, and they are not going to go all the way down to Wrexham. 

Mr David Jones:  Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has recently written to the Welsh Health Minister expressing precisely the concern on which he is dilating? 

Stephen Mosley:  I am not surprised to hear that, although I did not know it; but I shall speak to the hon. Gentleman and add my weight—although it may not be great in this room—to his representations, because he is correct. 

My concern is that, although there is a protocol, and there are voluntary arrangements, they do not work properly. I want the Secretary of State to be aware, when the Care Bill is considered in detail, that all the i’s must be dotted and all the t’s crossed, to ensure that the arrangements are watertight for people on both sides of the border. 

I want to comment on some other Bills in the Queen’s Speech. I very much support the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The close proximity of Chester and Saltney, in north-east Wales, sometimes gives rise to situations such as that a couple of years ago, whereby there was antisocial behaviour on the Welsh side of the border; the Welsh police cracked down on it and, of course, it moved 100 yards to the English side. That caused a problem until the English police got involved and sent those responsible back again. The North Wales police and Cheshire police got together and began joint patrols in Saltney. They eliminated the problem altogether. 

That was a fantastic piece of work between two different police forces. However, I am concerned about something in the Bill documents. The Welsh Assembly is considering which powers should be devolved, and I have heard the suggestion that it wants some devolved control of policing. I should be concerned about that, and hope that the Secretary of State will do his utmost to ensure that policing remains a UK Parliament responsibility. 

Hywel Williams:  England and Wales. 

Stephen Mosley:  Yes—I hope he will ensure that it remains an England and Wales responsibility, so that the good work that happens in the border areas can continue and the police forces can interact just as any other two police forces in England and Wales would. I prefer that to the situation in the NHS, where national differences can cause problems for local residents. 

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale I am incredibly impressed and pleased that the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill has been included in the Queen’s Speech, especially as Chester is at the end of the north Wales coastal railway. High-speed rail will put Cheshire within just under an hour of London. Access to High Speed 2 at Crewe will create the potential for easy access to London to continue all the way along north Wales. 

There is one little sticking point, of course. Currently the line from Crewe to Chester along north Wales is not electrified. I hope that the Secretary of State is putting his boot into the matter, and doing his utmost to ensure that the north Wales coast line will be electrified. I know that he has had discussions with the Transport Secretary, and I urge all hon. Members present today to get behind the project and encourage electrification of the line, so that we can have trains directly from London on High Speed 2, coming off at Crewe and going along the north Wales coast. 

I want to mention the Offender Rehabilitation Bill because I have been contacted by Wrexham councillors who are keen to ensure that the proposed north Wales prison will be in Wrexham. The leader of Wrexham county borough council, Councillor Neil Rogers, and Councillor Hugh Jones, who is a Conservative, recently

had a meeting with the Ministry of Justice to put forward the case. They tell me that many people in Wrexham support it. It would be hugely advantageous to have a prison in north Wales, to allow easy access for families, to help with rehabilitation in north Wales, and to ensure that people from north Wales need not travel long distances to visit their loved ones if they happen to end up in prison. 

There seems to be cross-party support on the borough council for the location of a prison in Wrexham, and that support is echoed by the regional leadership board and neighbouring north Wales and English local authorities. The Secretary of State mentioned that in his speech, and I encourage him to follow it up. 

Lastly, I might have been slightly negative about the cross-border relationships between England and Wales. In one respect, however, I am not negative at all: Chester is proud to have been host to the 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh for the past few years. In that time, it has done at least two tours of duty in Afghanistan, and it has served our country magnificently. However, it has also become an integral and important part of the local community in Chester. The families have got involved, and the children have attended local schools, and it has been a pleasure to host them. Unfortunately, the battalion is in the process of moving down to Wiltshire. Before it moves, I would like officially to congratulate it and to thank it for the work it has done in our city. I also thank it for the work it has done for the country. 

Several hon. Members  rose —  

The Chair:  Order. Before I call Chris Evans, I remind the Committee that I will call the Front Benchers at 3.40 pm. Four Members are seeking to catch my eye. I cannot put a five-minute limit on speeches, but I ask for self-discipline. 

3.21 pm 

Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op):  I will try to limit my comments to five minutes, Mr Owen. I express my gratitude to you for calling me to speak. 

I want to talk about how I see the Queen’s Speech. In reality, it is a know-nothing Queen’s Speech by a do-nothing Government. There is nothing in it to deal with youth unemployment; there is nothing for the small business that is being squeezed and that wants to borrow more money; there is nothing to improve living standards; and there is absolutely nothing to grow the economy. 

The recovery in this country is slower than in 22 out of 33 advanced economies. Wages are down £1,700 a year. Energy companies are enjoying huge profits, while people are struggling to heat their homes or even buy food. The average energy bill has gone up £300, and how have the Government responded? The Energy Bill, carried over from the last Parliament, will do absolutely nothing for the consumer. Energy companies still have a licence to squeeze as much as they can out of the consumer, and they will do so. Each winter, energy companies plead poverty at the same time as posting record profits. What are the Government doing? Absolutely nothing. 

When the Prime Minister invited the energy companies to No. 10 Downing street and gave them tea and biscuits, did he say we would fine them if they proved to be

colluding to raise their prices? I doubt it. What did he do? He begged: “Please don’t put your prices up this year. It’s making me look bad.” The truth is that an elderly person sitting by their kitchen table and living off a small state pension could freeze to death. There are 20 winter deaths each month of the winter in my constituency; that is simply because of the cold. 

When members of the Labour movement fought for improved living standards after the war, they did not expect our elderly to die because they could not afford to heat their homes. When the energy industry was privatised under Mrs Thatcher, I bet people did not think that one energy company would be replaced by six that colluded to put their prices up. The Government have not offered any hope. 

What have the Government offered those who are trying to grow their small business or those hoping for jobs? We have the deregulation Bill, which says we will cut non-essential health and safety and look at regulations that are not being used. If anybody in this room wants to see the tragedy that results when we lose the focus on health and safety, they should walk down the corridor and find out about the Senghenydd mining disaster. That was a failure of health and safety, and it resulted in people dying. 

When the Tories talk about deregulation—our Liberal Democrat friends should remember this when they are forced into the Lobby—they are talking about taking employment rights away. If anybody wants any evidence of employment rights being taken away, they should look at the madness in the Finance Bill. Employees are being asked to take £2,000 in shares to give up essential employment rights. There seems to be a myth among Government Members that deregulation and lack of employment rights would somehow grow the economy. Nobody said that in 13 years of Labour Government when the economy was growing, when people were enjoying increased maternity and paternity leave and the minimum wage. All that was opposed by the then Opposition. Every one of those measures was opposed. 

Nobody realises one thing that has been on the increase. If any worker in the past 30 years had been asked what they were most worried about it would be job insecurity. They are worried that their job might be offshored. They are worried that their job might be overtaken by a big conglomerate. They are even worried that their skills might become obsolete. Taking away essential employment rights increases job insecurity. 

I now turn to the only Bill that specifically mentions Wales—the draft Wales Bill. There are problems with the electoral system, but I am sure they are not going to be solved by introducing the gerrymandering of Clwyd West, the Secretary of State’s constituency. If four people stand for one seat and all get elected, what is the point of even voting? I go further: perhaps I am revealing my ignorance, but I do not understand the top-up system. People say to me all the time, “Chris, why am I voting Labour in Gwent, where we are winning all our seats right across the board, yet I am represented by a Tory?” I say, “I don’t know; it’s too complicated.” 

Yet, whenever one talks about changing the top-up system—either connecting it to the constituency system or abolishing it and bringing in a full first-past-the-post system—the same people who campaigned against the alternative vote two years ago say that it is Labour gerrymandering the system. The frustration that I have

had with the Welsh Assembly for the past 14 years is that I am sick and tired of talking about constitutional reform. The people of Wales do not care about more powers for the Assembly. They care about when they go into hospital whether they are going to get treated. They care about their education. By talking constantly about constitutional reform, we move away from those subjects. 

I am trying to be short, Mr Owen, but I want to talk about my biggest worry at the moment and the matter that affects my constituency more than any other: youth unemployment. In Islwyn, in the past year, we have seen youth unemployment go up 35%. I know I have attacked the Government Benches enough today, but I will say this: they did not invent youth unemployment. It has been going up and up since the 1980s. We need to address that. It is so important to recognise that the Government have something to do to tackle that. I had some sympathy with the Secretary of State when he said this morning that private business should be creating jobs. That statement should be qualified by asking what is being put in place to bring about jobs and training. 

We had a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore about procurement in small and medium enterprises. There is a project at Bangor university that is trying to reduce contracts from 50 pages to 10. That is something we should look at. Government procurement—from soft furnishings and paperclips to major pieces of medical equipment—is the one lever. 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb):  The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of good points. However, for the sake of accuracy for the record, I have the Office for National Statistics figures in front of me and youth unemployment in his constituency is lower today than at the start of this Government. Under the previous Government, it increased by more than 60%. A lot more work needs to be done, but for the sake of accuracy, I emphasise that youth unemployment is lower. 

Chris Evans:  I accept that point, but if I can develop the argument further, I will come to that. The figures I have in front of me are 35% higher than they were last year. That comes from Jobcentre Plus where I launched a scheme on Friday. I will deal with that point later . 

Procurement is the one lever for Government to stimulate the economy and increase small businesses. The Government have an aspiration of 25% of all Government contracts being fulfilled by SMEs. I say we need something more concrete than that. Rather than aspiration, we need an actual target. We need something that we can look at, touch and feel. We need to talk about what measures we have in place to ensure that SMEs can access Government contracts and that they are simple and offer advice for small businesses to get involved. 

 

Mr David Jones:  The hon. Gentleman makes a great deal of sense. I hope he will agree that one of the biggest barriers to SMEs bidding for central Government and Welsh Assembly contracts is the pre-qualification questionnaire. I am sure he will have seen the recommendations of Lord Young, who was derided this morning, but I believe that those recommendations are solid. 

Chris Evans:  I agree with the Secretary of State. I think Lord Young also said that we are not using SMEs to their full capacity, but there is still a lot of work to be done. For example, I know of a painting and decorating company in my constituency that employs five people. The business is based around repainting council houses, school buildings and hospitals. The people in the business say that it costs time and money to tender for the processes and very often they are not successful. The money has gone down the drain and they will never get it back. They have to keep tendering to make money, but they do not have the money to tender. What Lord Young has said about simplifying the process is important. I hope that that will come through in the next couple of years. As I have said, I am not denigrating the Government on this. Across parties, we know that procurement is important. It is something that we really need to work on together. 

On youth unemployment, I talked about how Government schemes, particularly Jobs Growth Wales, have increased youth employment. We have seen 6,000 jobs created so far, with 859 people entering a job through Jobs Growth Wales. However, I am concerned about youth unemployment. There is some doubt about the statistics I cited earlier. However, as Harold Wilson said, when someone is unemployed, it does not matter what the unemployment rate is; for the person who is unemployed, the unemployment rate is 100%. It affects their family deeply. I do not want to be melodramatic. I am not someone who harks back to the past; I always want to look at the future, but I am concerned. 

I grew up in the valleys in the 1980s. I have seen heavy industry run down and friends’ fathers consigned to the scrap heap. I have seen their skills, which were used in heavy industry, become obsolete and go to waste. The example then set for their sons and daughters was worklessness. That is so tragic. I have an example: in 1992, a friend of mine who is a little older than me applied for a job as a grass cutter in summer for the council. He had been out of work for 18 months and he did not think he would get another job at that point. He applied for the job as a grass cutter and he said that it was easy, because anyone could cut grass. He did not have an interview. When he inquired why, he was told that there were more than 200 applications and they probably did not read his application form. That was in the valleys 20 years ago. Unemployment ripped at the fabric of our society. 

I have always believed that politics is about much more than winning or losing elections. We are elected by people because they trust us to take action to do something. That is what motivated me to create what I call the Islwyn work experience scheme, which I launched in my constituency last Friday. I have written to 250 companies asking them to offer a six to eight-week placement for 18 to 24-year-olds who have been a long time out of work or have never had a job. I have had more than 70 placements so far, including high-quality companies such as Axiom Manufacturing, which the Secretary of State visited the other week. Also, Barclays Bank is offering two placements, two in Risca and two in Blackwood. It is not a job, but it is some experience that people can put on their CVs. 

The scheme is totally voluntary—you are frowning, Mr Owen. I am finishing now, but this is the big part. The people will not lose their jobseeker’s allowance.

There is total flexibility as to when they sign on. Jobcentre Plus will pay their travel expenses to get to the placements. All we ask in return from the businesses is to offer a reference for their CVs. The response has been overwhelming. I am hoping and praying that a booklet will be produced and sent out to all those who are eligible through Jobcentre Plus, and I hope that the young people will be so fantastic that we will have some permanent jobs in the process. It is only a start. It is simply something that I am doing in Islwyn, but I hope that it is something that we can look at. Caerphilly county borough council and, as I said, Jobcentre Plus are onside. I hope that we can roll it out across the country. I have spoken for too long, so please forgive me for next time, Mr Owen, but thank you very much. 

The Chair:  It will be difficult to squeeze two members into the next six minutes, but I call Roger Williams. 

3.35 pm 

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD):  In the two and a half minutes that remain for me, I was going to say complementary things about the hon. Member for Islwyn, but I have run out of time, I am afraid. I will mention the glowing tributes my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire and for Aberconwy paid to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb). They were the sorts of tributes that one normally associates with someone leaving office or even leaving this life, but I do not think he intends to do either. I will mention the important work, mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, that he has done on how we look after pensioners. 

I am pleased that we are introducing the single-tier pension, because it is difficult for the self-employed in particular to put together enough for a decent pension. At least they will now be assured that they will have a decent state pension. The problems of saving for a pension have been highlighted before, but they include the poor performance of pension funds and the very low rates paid on pensions—actuaries take a rosy view of how long people will live and a pessimistic view of how funds will perform. The single-tier pension is good and is initiated in conjunction with the triple lock that we have introduced. No longer will pensioners suffer the indignity of a 75p increase in their pension; the increase will be a minimum of £2.20. 

I shall say one or two words about small businesses. I visited a successful small business in my constituency, Radnor Hills. It employs 65 people, which is quite a lot for my area. I received compliments about the reduction in the national insurance contribution that employers have to make, but the owner pointed out that he could take on more people and invest in more equipment if the business had a greater capital allowance. I know that the Government have put it up from £25,000 to £250,000, but we must do everything we can to encourage investment in such businesses. It has grown to that size in only 20 years—an extraordinary achievement. A greater capital allowance allows that owner, like other small-business people, to make investments. 

In my constituency, unemployment has dropped by 181 since last year and by 49 since last month. Although I know that not all those jobs are quite as good as we

would like, that is a great achievement. Even in unemployment black spots such as Ystradgynlais, businesses are keen to take on people and will do so when they get the right opportunity to expand. 

3.38 pm 

Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con):  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire for allowing me a few moments to return home. It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. The more I look around the room, the more I realise that I have connections with many hon. Members here. Some years ago, I contested the constituencies of the hon. Member for Islwyn and the junior Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, as part of a one-man campaign to accumulate as many votes against me in Wales as possible. I was a councillor in the constituency of the hon. Member for Llanelli and my family still live there. My greatest link is with the shadow Secretary of State, because he and I have both lost by-elections in Gwent. 

I want to deal briefly with two matters. The debate about the Silk commission is important. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Islwyn, who said that it is just a constitutional issue; it is a fundamental issue. I represent Swindon, which has a large diaspora community, and we talk a lot about Wales and its future in the Union. One of the issues that comes up is how Wales will pay for itself in future. Taxation is important, and the remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire made deserve serious consideration. A maturing democracy must have as part of its role the ability to raise taxation, so it is responsible for that taxation to its electors. Until that element comes into Welsh democracy, the Welsh Assembly will not be the fulcrum of debate that it ought to be. 

I will move on to the issue of criminal justice. I practiced in Wales for many years, so this issue is close to my heart. I am glad that the Offender Rehabilitation Bill is in the Queen’s Speech. It is important for the rehabilitation of prison populations that as many Welsh prisoners are as close to their homes as possible. I am thinking particularly of women prisoners, who, at the moment, cannot be incarcerated anywhere in Wales. The plans for a prison in north Wales are important, and should be accelerated as part of the prison expansion programme, as well as the expansion of HMP Parc in Bridgend. That will assist the process of rehabilitation, and will improve and enhance the menu of options that are available when sentencing criminals who come before the magistrates and crown courts in Wales. I commend the Queen’s Speech to the Committee, and I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the work of the Government. 

The Chair:  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity. 

3.41 pm 

Nia Griffith:  I will try to keep strictly to time as we are running short. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have taken part today. A large number of topics have been covered, some more connected to the Queen’s Speech than others, but all of considerable concern to the people of Wales. 

The hon. Member for Ceredigion raised the issue of the mis-selling of financial products, and in particular the issue of interest rate swaps. He appealed to the Secretary of State for his support on that matter. He expressed strong regret, however, that the Queen’s Speech did not include any definite proposals arising from the Silk commission part I. The draft Wales Bill has a blank page on that issue. Whether it is graded 1 to 8 by the Secretary of State for Education or A to G by Leighton Andrews, it gets 0, as coursework or an end of term exam, for a blank page. 

The hon. Member for Arfon said he was underwhelmed by the Government’s Queen’s Speech. He contrasted the energy-generating potential in Wales with the abject fuel poverty. He made a critical appraisal of the new Conservative website, “Let Britain Decide”. The hon. Member for Aberconwy spoke about small businesses and the Pensions Bill and the cut in national insurance contributions. 

My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen spoke about the Public Service Commission, and the challenges it faces in combining the most cost-efficient administration of public services with the most effective democratic accountability. He felt that the Government wasted the opportunity to bring in a more substantial Wales Bill to address the issue of borrowing, a theme that has been echoed by many hon. Members today. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire praised the Lib Dems, but I am not quite sure what they would have made of his comments on renegotiating the European settlement. He finally decided to mention Wales, and talked about devolving income tax. 

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley told us about the distressing work she is doing on the health service, and recounted some experiences of the health service that people have written to tell her about. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent talked about Operation Jasmine and the need for measures to prosecute those who leave elderly people in deplorable conditions in care homes. He told us about the amendment that he intends to table to the Social Care Bill. 

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale told us about HS2 and gambling. The hon. Member for City of Chester raised some pertinent cross-border issues. Perhaps I might refer him to the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee on that topic, because there are issues there that need to be looked at again. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn spoke passionately about the economy and the need to tackle energy prices. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire told us about small businesses. The hon. Member for South Swindon told us about how he seemed to have a connection with just about everybody, but he focused his comments specifically on the need for a prison in north Wales and the need for provision for women prisoners. 

To return to the main body of the Queen’s Speech, for us in the Welsh Grand Committee the Wales Bill was the thing that we were all looking forward to. It has come as a disappointment to many people that it contained nothing about borrowing. Why should the Welsh Government want borrowing power? They were told seven months ago that this was going to happen. They have planned carefully. Jane Hutt has announced a package of more than £75 million in additional capital investment to support the priorities set out in the Wales infrastructure investment plan for growth and jobs, and

last week Welsh Ministers also announced a £400 million boost to increase the supply of housing in Wales, which will help realise the Welsh Government’s ambitious plans to deliver 7,500 new affordable homes by 2016. However, if they want to plan ahead properly and do a great deal more to stimulate the economy of Wales and help it grow, they could do with the borrowing powers sooner rather than later. They would be able to plan, think ahead, put in for more infrastructure projects and get things in the pipeline. 

Jonathan Edwards:  Will the hon. Lady explain whether the Welsh Government are lobbying the UK Government for the full package or the partial package, and which one the Labour Front Bench here is arguing for with the Treasury? 

Nia Griffith:  The most important thing is that the people of Wales should not miss out. I will not digress to the finer details of the finance, because what we must remember is that this Government have made a significant cut to the Welsh budget; it is £1.4 billion less than it was in 2009. That is very significant, and it is one reason why the Welsh Government are having to do everything possible to save money and to stimulate the economy and create growth. 

Although the Welsh Government have been pushing measures to tackle health inequalities and promote healthy lifestyles, when it comes to acting through consumer legislation, which is the responsibility of the UK Government, the Minister and his colleagues have let down the people of Wales, particularly the young people. I refer to the Government’s failure to include in the Queen’s Speech any legislation on plain packaging for cigarettes. 

We should do everything that we can to deter our young people from taking up smoking. The Prime Minister referred to the possibility of introducing plain packaging back at the beginning of March, and on 19 April the Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), confirmed on the BBC’s “Today” that she was in favour. However, those were yet more empty promises, because there was absolutely nothing about it in the Queen’s Speech. We know perfectly well that manufacturers would not be making such a fuss if not for the fact that those glossy, attractive packages appeal to young women in particular, and promote the uptake of smoking. 

Roger Williams:  Will the hon. Lady give way? 

Nia Griffith:  No, I am very short of time. I am sorry. 

The failure here is not just in not introducing the legislation; there is also a failure of understanding among Ministers of the devolution settlement. What is the Minister doing to ensure that his team across the whole of Whitehall are up to speed? I had an answer from the Health Minister denying that the consultation on plain packaging had anything to do with Wales, when in fact it included England and Wales, as would any legislation in that sphere. It is different in Scotland—there are different issues there—but even though it is a health issue rather than a consumer issue, it includes

England and Wales. It was distressing to get an answer telling my constituents that health is a devolved issue and that the Minister therefore did not propose to answer the question that they raised. I hope that the Government team will be able to put that right. 

Consumer rights are important and something that we all applaud. It is great to see that legislation is being introduced that will bring together a large number of existing bits of legislation, but where is the measure to tackle the energy companies? That is what people in my constituency and across Wales are most concerned about, given that bills have risen by more than £300 a year since 2010. What we really wanted was what we would have proposed: a tough regulator who would crack down on excessive energy prices and ensure that when wholesale prices fall, the lower prices are passed on to the consumer, which is not what happens. 

Has the Minister done anything about S4C? The spending review is coming up, and we know that S4C’s spending has been cut severely, and that it would not like any further cuts. I hope that he has been making representations on S4C’s behalf. 

The Water Bill is another opportunity missed. Flood insurance is the key thing in people’s minds. We know what has happened in Wales in the past year, and how many communities are on flat land beneath steep slopes, and therefore vulnerable to flooding. The agreement that was going to run out at the end of June has been extended to the end of July, but there has been no agreement and nothing has been decided by this Government, even though the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs promised in March that it would be sorted out. What has the Minister done to sort out for the people of Wales exactly what will happen in respect of the flood insurance that so many of them are worrying about? 

Time is moving on, so I will refer only briefly to dual candidacy. It has been severely abused in Wales, with people who were elected hankering after the constituency they had wanted and neglecting the other constituencies in their region. For example, when did a certain Member for Llanelli ever go to Machynlleth, Montgomery or Merthyr Tydfil? 

The real issue with the Queen’s Speech is missed opportunity: the missed opportunity for borrowing powers for the Welsh Government; the missed opportunity to tackle the energy companies; the missed opportunity to deal with cigarette companies and introduce plain packaging; the missed opportunity to sort out the flood insurance issue in the water Bill. There is absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy and absolutely nothing to help bring down long-term unemployment in Wales. I am sorry to say, Mr Owen, that the Queen’s Speech has been a real disappointment. 

3.51 pm 

Stephen Crabb:  I thank the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). It is always a pleasure to follow her on occasions such as this. I also thank you, Mr Owen, for your excellent chairmanship and that of the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) this morning, and for showing sensible latitude for hon. Members on both sides to air concerns and issues that they feel strongly about, albeit at a tangent from the context of the Queen’s Speech. As a result, we have had a lively and varied debate. 

I want to put on the record my particular thanks to three hon. Members from across the border: my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon, for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). All spoke with real knowledge and a real love of Wales, and it was helpful to have insight, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, about some of the cross-border implications of legislation being taken forward by the Welsh Government and the UK Government. We must listen a lot more to MPs who have constituencies close to the border because I am sure there are many unintended consequences of legislation from both Governments that we are not picking up adequately and addressing. I am grateful for his remarks today. 

The debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who showed how legislation in the coalition Government’s third Session will continue our excellent work in providing the right framework for businesses to continue to grow and for unemployment to continue to be tackled. It is disappointing that so few Opposition Members mentioned today’s unemployment figures, because they show again this month that unemployment in Wales is falling. The hon. Member for Islwyn spoke passionately and well about the tragedy of unemployment, particularly in constituencies where it is far too high—we have too many of those in Wales—but some positive things are happening in the Welsh jobs market at the moment. The Welsh Government in Cardiff and the UK Government, separately and working together, must ensure that those good things are spread more evenly, so that we see unemployment falling not only in parts of north Wales, west Wales or certain parts of south Wales, but throughout the Principality where we want a sustained drop in unemployment. 

Nia Griffith:  Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Welsh Government on the fact that in the Jobs Growth Wales programme, 80% of those doing a six-month placement end up getting a permanent job? That is one reason why the figures are coming down. However, far too many young people in Wales remain unemployed, and the UK Government could do more with fiscal measures to put that right. 

Stephen Crabb:  I welcome the Welsh Government’s efforts to do their bit to tackle entrenched unemployment in Wales. My point is that we should not pat ourselves too heavily on the back. Businesses create jobs, and we must do more to back the entrepreneurs, small business people and the self-employed in all our constituencies, because they are driving the increase in jobs in Wales. 

Most of the contributions today touched on the draft Wales Bill. It is fair to say that there is a strong appetite among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to see the Government come forward with a response to Silk part I. That message has been communicated loud and clear. I will not engage in trying to define how long spring is, and at what point that might end, but I will put on record that that message is getting through. 

I will say, however, that what is more important than sticking to any particular time scale is ensuring that we get the right package for Wales. The right hon. Member for Torfaen said that we need borrowing powers immediately in Wales and he almost seemed to be saying that the

Welsh Government need borrowing powers to fund spending on services to mitigate the budget cuts that were necessary as part of restoring discipline to UK Government finance. It would be a huge mistake if we were to replace budget discipline at the UK level with allowing the Welsh Government to create new forms of Welsh debt that will be unsustainable in the future. It is important to get the right answer for the package of fiscal measures that we will devolve to Wales and we must ensure that that balances with the appropriate borrowing needs of Wales. 

Paul Murphy:  Of course, the issue is that that borrowing would be used for capital expenditure and those schemes would, in themselves, create employment. 

Stephen Crabb:  I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman said that, because in his earlier remarks he did not talk about borrowing for capital expenditure; he talked about public services and the impact of the fiscal measures that we have had to take as a result of—let us be clear about this—the financial ruin that the previous Government almost brought this country to. I would say to colleagues on both sides to keep pressing us; there will be an announcement shortly. 

On the content of the draft Bill relating to candidatures and five-year terms for the Assembly, we are in danger of revisiting arguments that a number of us had on the Welsh Affairs Committee back in the early years of the previous Parliament. Opposition Members have said that removing the ban on dual candidacy would be a return to gerrymandering and so on, but we had all those discussions in that Committee and on the Floor of the House. I remember being a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee and hearing evidence from Dr Richard Wyn Jones and Dr Roger Scully where they said that introducing the ban on dual candidacy was a partisan act. 

We should not waste too much time on revisiting those arguments. The best point made on this was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, who said that legislation is not needed: if parties do not want their candidates to stand simultaneously as constituency candidates and as list candidates, they can stop that. Individual political parties can make that choice. 

We had some discussion on Europe. During the Queen’s Speech debate on the Floor of the House, there was a significant amount of debate on the absence of a Bill to bring forward a referendum on our membership of the European Union. A number of Opposition Members expressed concern about the uncertainty that that creates for foreign investors into Wales. I get out and about in Wales a lot and I speak to many companies from overseas—not just from the European Union—who are making significant investment into Wales and none of them has raised any concerns with me about the Conservative party’s position on looking at our relationship with the European Union, and on the need to redefine that relationship and put it on a sustainable basis for the future. 

Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab):  Can the Minister name any businesses that have told him that they agree that we ought to get out of Europe because that would be good for them? 

Stephen Crabb:  I will resist the trap that the hon. Gentleman is trying to lure me into. I will not discuss the specifics of my private discussions with foreign investors into Wales. 

The hon. Gentleman needs to recognise—actually, I do not think that any Opposition Member has recognised this today—the strength of feeling in all parts of the United Kingdom about our relationship with the European Union. There is growing concern about that. It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister has responded to that and I absolutely applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) for bringing forward a private Member’s Bill. 

I wholly endorse the Prime Minister’s position and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman went on to the doorsteps of people in Wales, those people who care

about these matters would tell him that they agree with that as well. Yes, they still see that it is important for us to be part of the European Union, for the benefit that the single market brings, but they are fed up with the intrusiveness of European regulations, they are fed up with the meddling and they want to see some redefinition. 

A number of colleagues referred to the benefits of the— 

4 pm 

Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of the sitting, the Chair interrupted the proceedings (Order of the House, 21 May ) .  

Committee adjourned.