Legislative Programme

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dr William McCrea  , †Albert Owen 

Bebb, Guto (Aberconwy) (Con) 

Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab) 

Bryant, Chris (Rhondda) (Lab) 

† Cairns, Alun ( Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales)  

Caton, Martin (Gower) (Lab) 

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon Valley) (Lab) 

† Crabb, Stephen (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 (Clwyd West) (Con) 

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) 

Newmark, Mr Brooks (Braintree) (Con) 

Norman, Jesse (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) 

† 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) 

Fergus Reid, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Welsh Grand Committee 

Wednesday 16 July 2014  

(Morning)  

[Albert Owen in the Chair] 

Legislative Programme

9.30 am 

The Chair:  Before I call the Secretary of State, I remind Members that the sitting will continue until 11.25 am, and the Committee will meet again at 2 pm until 4 pm. I have no power to impose time limits, and a number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak, so I ask Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members to be brief in their introductions so we can have a continuous debate. 

The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb):  I beg to move, 

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. 

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Owen. It is a pleasure it to serve under your chairmanship again, but for the first time in my new role as Secretary of State for Wales. I want to put on the record my gratitude for the messages of good will and support from Members from Wales from all parties. I hope that spirit of good will is reflected in today’s debate— [ Interruption. ] Although I have been put on notice to expect a bit of a roughing up from some of the bigger boys later. 

I wish to put on the record my personal tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West, who worked tirelessly for Wales during his four years at the Wales Office. He achieved so much during his time as Welsh Secretary and leaves a strong legacy to Wales, not least the groundbreaking work he did, through the Silk commission, on devolving tax powers to Wales. That work is reflected in the Wales Bill, which is in the other place. I pay tribute to the energy and work he put into securing investment in new infrastructure for Wales, including the new prison in Wrexham, the new nuclear power station for north Wales and the upgrading of the M4. We should all pay tribute to his contribution and the strong legacy he leaves to Wales. He was a great Secretary of State to work under and a great Secretary of State, full stop. 

Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab):  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new post. Apart from his beard and the fact that for the first time in a generation no Minister of any hue represents a constituency in north Wales, what policy differences will there be between him and the previous Secretary of State for Wales? 

Stephen Crabb:  I look forward to carrying on my right hon. Friend’s excellent work; he leaves a strong legacy, and I am conscious that he has left big shoes to fill. I look forward to carrying on the work he started and maintaining the good working relationships with

the Welsh Government and across Whitehall. People and businesses across Wales are looking for a team in the Wales Office who roll up their sleeves, work pragmatically and flexibly, establish those positive relationships and deliver for the people of Wales. 

Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con):  I endorse the congratulations being given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West. 

I wish to follow up on a point made by the right hon. Member for Delyn, who has a short memory. When I served in the Welsh Office, two of us came from south Wales, and we served under my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who is now First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons. On being appointed to the Welsh Office, we were criticised because none of us could speak Welsh. Therefore, we are in a much better position than when I was serving. 

Stephen Crabb:  My hon. Friend’s point is well made. What matters is having a team of Ministers at the Wales Office who are absolutely committed to working in the best interests of Wales, who are ambitious for Wales, whose voices are taken seriously at the heart of Government and who are able to work effectively with counterparts in the Welsh Government in Cardiff. That is the team we have, and I am excited about the work we will be doing. 

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC):  I also extend my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Secretary of State for Wales. He seems to be a pragmatic sort of politician. Is he wedded to the Wales Bill as it stands, or will he be looking to improve and strengthen it during its progress through the House of Lords? 

Stephen Crabb:  The hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring to changes that might take place in Scotland, depending on the outcome of the referendum in September. As I have said before, at the moment there is no need to think about rewriting the Wales Bill. It is good Bill that is in the other place after receiving strong support and endorsement in the House of Commons. I am open minded about how devolution is going to develop, particularly fiscal devolution, which I see as an important next step in the devolution pathway for Wales, but, at the moment, I see no particular reason to start rewriting the Bill. 

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab):  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new post. As a sign of his commitment to north Wales, he attended the Adjournment debate in which I mentioned the hovercraft link to Liverpool and to Liverpool airport. I have secured a meeting with the Transport Minister to progress that. Will he join us at that meeting and ensure that the hovercraft link between Liverpool and north Wales happens? 

Stephen Crabb:  I can think of nothing better than joining the hon. Gentleman and meeting to discuss a hovercraft link. That is an important project—let us not make light of it. He has raised the issue before in

debates in the House of Commons and has made the case effectively, as he always does when he is speaking up for his constituency. My answer is yes; diaries permitting, it would be helpful to attend that meeting and to have that discussion. 

The Government’s legislative programme includes 11 Bills, three draft Bills and five Bills carried forward from the third Session of this Parliament. It builds on the work we have done to implement to our long-term economic plan—a plan that is delivering for hard-working people across the UK, including in Wales. The UK is now the fastest growing major economy in the G7. There are more people working than ever before, and confidence is returning. 

The Government have worked hard to strengthen the UK’s balance sheet, helping to provide £40 billion of UK guarantees to get infrastructure projects under way that otherwise might have fallen by the wayside due to financial difficulties. In this year alone, new projects worth an estimated £36 billion are due to start across the UK, creating thousands of jobs, securing future growth and delivering the world class infrastructure that the country needs. Wales is playing its part in that, as the work of the Wales Office infrastructure working group, which I chaired, has demonstrated. 

Our investment of £9 billion over the next five years will transform railway networks across England and Wales—the most ambitious investment plans since Brunel transformed the railways in Victorian times. We are investing almost £70 million in better broadband for Wales, which will make superfast broadband available to 96% of all premises in Wales by spring 2016, delivering speeds around 15 times faster than those available now. We are investing £212 million in a new prison in Wrexham and work is progressing on Wylfa newydd on Anglesey—two key projects that will create thousands of jobs in north Wales. 

Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC):  I add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his new post. He is, of course, the first bearded Cabinet Minister to be appointed since the Earl of Onslow in 1905. 

Chris Ruane:  That’s no beard. 

Mr Llwyd:  I was there at the time. I grow a moustache in tribute to him. 

To the serious angle: the Secretary of State knows my interest in broadband and I asked him about it in Wales questions. Although faster broadband for 96% is fine, there are quite a few people in that 4% in rural and north-west Wales who have nothing. Will he please liaise with Ministers in Cardiff and with BT to ensure that everybody gets a fair crack? 

Stephen Crabb:  The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He has constituents who are in that 4% category and cannot access any broadband. They feel increasingly frustrated when we talk more about superfast speeds. They think, “Hang on, we’d like just a little bit of broadband speed to start with.” I have constituents in my part of west Wales who are in a similar position. We are investing money in pilot projects around the UK to look at how we can close the digital gap for that 4%. We are running a pilot project in Wales to look at

exactly the kind of circumstances—the geographical and topographical challenges—that make connecting superfast broadband to all premises in Wales such a challenge. 

Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD):  I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. To reiterate that point, and given his background in supporting small businesses, broadband access is important to the many one-man or one-woman bands who are running small businesses in the farming community. It is an economic issue as much as a domestic one. 

Stephen Crabb:  My hon. Friend is right. The digital revolution has been a boon to the rural economy, allowing businesses that would not have been able to do so otherwise to locate and grow in rural areas, but it is a source of frustration for the business person in those communities when they cannot access the internet in the way they want to. That creates a barrier to business growth and further business investment. It is vital that we tackle that, which is why we are putting UK taxpayers’ money towards it. 

Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC):  Further to that point, an increasing number of Government services are delivered by broadband, not least universal credit and the child care payments that some of us heard about on Monday. Will the Secretary of State pursue the matter within Government to ensure that, if those services are to be provided in that way, there are alternatives for the 4% who may never have access to broadband? Given that he is Secretary of State for Wales, will he ensure that services are available in Welsh? 

Stephen Crabb:  The hon. Gentleman raises two important points. As we move an increasing amount of Government services to a digital format online, it is important that we provide maximum opportunities for people from all backgrounds, demographics and age groups to access them. That is why we look at how we provide those services in public spaces, such as libraries, and why we are investing in the Superfast Cymru scheme to allow homes to be wired up to broadband. 

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Welsh language very seriously and I will follow it up with Government colleagues. 

Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab):  Will the Secretary of State give way? 

Stephen Crabb:  I give way to the former Secretary of State for Wales. 

Paul Murphy:  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, his deputy on their appointments. I am sure they will enjoy their jobs in the Wales Office. Certainly those of us who have worked there did. 

I want to put on record a point about the Secretary of State’s beard. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made an error when he said that the Secretary of State is the first Cabinet Minister since 1905 to have a beard. He might be the first such

Conservative Cabinet Minister, but Charles Clarke sported a beard. It was not a very good one, but nevertheless it was a beard. 

Stephen Crabb:  Never let it be said that the Welsh Grand Committee is not a cockpit for the most crucial issues facing the nation of Wales at this time. 

David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con):  May I briefly take the discussion away from beards and back to broadband, if the Secretary of State will forgive me? As well as welcoming both new Ministers, may I say, representing a rural area, how important it is that those policies are carried forward? Does the Secretary of State agree that BT needs to make it clear as quickly as possible which properties are not going to get superfast broadband, so that those people can go out and utilise the alternative forms—whether satellite or something else—rather than keeping them waiting for years? 

Stephen Crabb:  My hon. Friend raises a good point. Engineers investigate properties that look like they could be wired up to superfast broadband, but it sometimes turns out, for whatever reason, that they cannot. It is not all about BT keeping customers in the dark, but there is an important point there about fairness to customers, transparency and providing information early so that the consumer can make appropriate choices in response. 

Mr Mark Williams:  Further to the point that the hon. Member for Arfon made about Government services and the obligation on people to respond online, will the Secretary of State have a word with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about the lack of flexibility afforded to members of the farming community in areas where there is no broadband access? They are required to file their returns online and are often fined for being unable to do so, although that is no fault of their own. 

Stephen Crabb:  I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will look into that issue. If he has some specific case studies that he could send me, that would be helpful. 

Moving on, we are supporting energy-intensive industries, which are so important to the Welsh economy, with a package that we announced in the Budget. That will save those industries in Wales some £240 million over a two-year period. We have also given the go-ahead to HS2, one of the most ambitious rail projects in our history, which will improve connectivity between London, the north-west and north Wales. 

The Government have cut the income tax burden for 1.2 million people in Wales. By April next year, we will have taken 155,000 people in Wales, many of whom are on the lowest incomes, out of income tax altogether. That is a practical way to return money to the pockets of hard-working people when many still face challenging financial circumstances. It is also why the Government cancelled the fuel duty rises planned by the Labour Government. Fuel is now 20p per litre cheaper than it would have been had we continued with the tax plans that Labour had in place when it left government. That is good news for Wales’s motorists and for Welsh businesses. 

Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab):  I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. Will he say how much more Welsh motorists are paying because of the VAT increase that his Government introduced, which they said they were not going to? 

Stephen Crabb:  I would be happy to spend all day debating with the hon. Gentleman the costs facing Welsh motorists, but the truth is that, had we carried on with the plans put in place by the Labour Government, motorists in Wales would now be paying 20p per litre more. We are a Government who take seriously cost-of-living pressures. That is why we have been taking forward the measures I have been talking about. It is why, in England, the Government have put in place a council tax freeze. If the hon. Gentleman really took seriously the cost-of-living issues, he would be challenging his Welsh Labour colleagues in Cardiff as to why they have hiked council tax in the past four years. 

This Government are steering the Welsh economy towards sustainable growth, driven by a revitalised private sector, which has created 47,000 jobs in the past 12 months alone. Not only are more people in work in Wales, but they are being paid more. In 2013, average earnings for full-time employees in Wales grew at twice the UK average, and the growth was almost twice the rate of inflation. Does that mean that wages are at the level we are happy to see? No. We want them higher still. We recognise that low wages are still a major challenge for many individuals and families in Wales, but we also need to recognise that the 2008 recession, which was disastrous for this country, saw a massive destruction of wealth in the UK and Welsh economies and resulted in rapid deterioration in real wage levels. Wages have not gone back to the level we want them to get to, but in Wales they are increasing, and doing so faster than inflation. That is a positive step forward. 

Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab):  I shall add my congratulations to the Secretary of State in a moment. On wages, does he agree that the benefits changes that his Government have introduced in Wales have, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrated, made each family in Wales around £970 worse off? 

Stephen Crabb:  We hear—again—a Welsh Labour Member standing up to oppose the benefits reforms that we are taking forward in the United Kingdom, even though, looking at what the shadow Chancellor has said, we are led to believe that Labour supports a lot of the changes we have made. 

Looking at why unemployment has fallen so far in Wales, and at the positive picture in the jobs market in the past two years in Wales, a lot of that is down to the welfare reforms that we are taking forward. We have to tackle the curse of welfare dependency in Wales, which is one thing that is holding back the Welsh economy. 

The Opposition used to believe in and support welfare reform. I remember a young leader of the Labour party called Tony Blair, who came to office saying that he wanted to tackle welfare dependency, using all the right rhetoric, but Labour went soft on it and did not follow through on the rhetoric. As a result, welfare dependency increased. 

Chris Ruane:  On welfare reform, will the Secretary of State tell me what he thinks of his party’s proposals to force people who are mentally ill and unemployed to take anti-depressants or treatment for their depression? How will that be done? Will a Minister be standing over people, forcing those anti-depressants down their throats? Is that not a ludicrous policy? 

Stephen Crabb:  What is ludicrous is painting that caricature of our policies. That is not what is happening. If the hon. Gentleman took some time to look at the practical steps being taken forward by my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, he would see that they are absolutely in the best interests of the people facing the most significant barriers to getting into work. 

We want to reduce barriers into work. We see no reason why people who have difficult and complicated challenges should be excluded from the labour market. With the right support and encouragement, they can make a much fuller economic contribution, and the hon. Gentleman should support that in Wales. 

Chris Ruane:  Should we not be using support? In north Wales, we have the Bangor mindfulness centre, which is involved in projects in Rhyl, in my constituency, working with unemployed people, using mindfulness—a non-toxic way—to help people with mental health issues back into work. Is that not the caring and supporting role that is needed with people with mental health illness, not a big stick and a pill? 

Stephen Crabb:  Forgive me, I am not familiar with the specific project or treatment the hon. Gentleman mentions. My level of expertise on this does not extend to that, but I am keen to find out more. If he wants to send me some information, we can look at that. 

It is important that we learn from the third sector in Wales. There is a lot of great work happening involving different groups. There is also a lot we can learn that we need to feed into how we shape Government policies for people who face all kinds of long-term conditions that prevent them from participating fully in the labour market. 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab):  What is the hon. Gentleman doing to limit the Government’s welfare dependency multiplication programme’s undermining of Welsh civil service jobs, which have brought some prosperity to areas that have suffered from the loss of industrial jobs? What is he doing to restore the 150 passport office jobs to Newport? What is he doing to halt the mad scheme put forward by the Cabinet Office to offshore the jobs in the shared services area? Those are terrible threats to the future of all public service jobs in Wales. There was even a threat in the Financial Times last week suggesting that Newport was not the best location for the Office for National Statistics. They are undermining the jobs that were brought in and have huge benefits for Wales. What will he personally do to stop that? 

Stephen Crabb:  There is a duty on every Government—of any party—to look at how they deliver Government services, particularly those that could be described as

back-office functions. If we want to release more resources to the vital front-line services such as schools and hospitals—I know the hon. Gentleman is very passionate about that—we have to take decisions to make efficient use of back-office resources. This must be at least the fourth time he has asked a Minister that specific question about reshoring and he gets the same answer every time. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has made it absolutely clear that he would not agree to the offshoring of jobs related to the shared services centre in Newport. I will give him the same answer he has had from every other Minister: we want to see those jobs stay in Newport. 

Jonathan Evans:  My hon. Friend may remember that, following the election in 2010, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd challenged me on this agenda in relation to public sector jobs, because over 50% of employment in my constituency is dependent on the public sector. The actual result in my constituency is that unemployment is now 30% less than it was on the day I was elected, and youth unemployment is down by 40%. Does that not show that we are rebalancing the economy in Wales? 

Stephen Crabb:  That is exactly the case, and if my hon. Friend has seen today’s unemployment figures, he will know that unemployment continues to fall in Wales. Youth unemployment also continues to fall in Wales, which is particularly encouraging. If we scroll back to the beginning of this Parliament, when we had to take some incredibly difficult decisions to sort out the financial mess the Labour party had left us, that party said we could not rebalance the economy. It specifically said that the Welsh private sector was too weak to fill the gap that might be created by some difficult public funding decisions. The truth is that 47,000 new private sector jobs have been created in Wales in the last 12 months. The majority of those are full-time, permanent and good-quality jobs. The private sector has stepped up to the mark and it is a great shame that the Labour party will not recognise or salute that. 

Chris Ruane:  May I intervene on an intervention? 

Stephen Crabb:  I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I like his interventions. 

Chris Ruane:  I did indeed put those figures into the public domain. In my constituency, 46% of those who worked there and 33% of those who lived there worked in the public sector. The percentages were similar next door in Clwyd West. According to research out last week, those public sector workers have lost £2,500 a year since 2010. Is that not a massive hole in the local economy? 

Stephen Crabb:  Some very difficult decisions were taken around public sector wages, but they were supported by the Labour party and they continue to be supported by that party’s Front Benchers. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party does not agree with the pay measures introduced for the public sector? That is one key way we are trying to plug the deficit left by the Labour party. 

Chris Ruane:  The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. That may be the case, but when will the Government stop throttling public sector pay? 

Stephen Crabb:  The truth is that whichever party wins the next election will still face an extremely challenging financial scenario. The difficult decisions have not gone away. There will be yet more difficult decisions for the next Parliament. That is why, I am led to believe, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer supports the difficult decisions that are being made about public sector pay. Of course we want to see people working hard and taking home higher wages, but as the economic conditions permit. 

Paul Flynn:  The problem the Secretary of State fails to understand is that assurances about the location of the shared services jobs were given by the Ministry of Justice, but the decision will be made by the Cabinet Office. There is no indication that the jobs will be assured by the Cabinet Office, which is led by someone who appointed three people to do the job of Gus O’Donnell and has now gone back to one person. Steria is likely to have the power to export those jobs if it so desires because the Cabinet Office, which will take the decision, has remained silent. 

The Chair:  Order. The Secretary of State will bring us back to the Queen’s Speech. 

Stephen Crabb:  I will do so immediately. We can continue the discussion on this topic through correspondence or at the next session of Wales Office questions. It is an important point and we will come back to it. 

Returning to the Government’s legislative programme as it relates to Wales, through our fourth legislative programme we will continue the work to strengthen the economy. We will do even more to boost investment in infrastructure and support the development of new sources of energy, so that we are less reliant on imports in future. We will help businesses grow by improving their access to finance, cutting more red tape and helping as many as possible expand into overseas markets. 

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which we will debate in the Chamber today, will ensure that smaller companies are given fair access to the £230 billion spent in the UK each year on public procurement contracts, and will increase the availability and sources of finance for businesses that want to invest. It will also set deregulation targets to reduce further the burden of red tape that still constrains business growth. 

To help businesses and their employees further, we will introduce the draft National Insurance Contributions Bill, which will simplify the payment of national insurance for self-employed people and clamp down on those who avoid making payments on behalf of their workers. We want to make it easier for the 193,000 small firms in Wales to innovate and expand and we want to see more small business start-ups in Wales. Those Bills will help to create the environment where that can happen. 

Jonathan Edwards:  The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill includes welcome provisions to ban the exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Why do the Government not ban zero-hours contracts outright? 

Stephen Crabb:  If we were to ban zero-hours contracts, or contracts that are caricatured as zero hours, a great many Members of Parliament, maybe even some on the Opposition Benches, would lose staff very quickly. 

Ian Lucas:  Who? 

Stephen Crabb:  The truth is that for some people that kind of contract is flexible and provides the working arrangements that they choose. We had a consultation and investigation into the abuse of zero-hours contracts. We felt that it was most important to focus on the exclusivity clause because that is the nasty bit that prevents somebody from being able to work on other contracts. 

A great many people out there find that it suits them to package together different bits of work and jobs. For people who find themselves in those circumstances but want a so-called proper full-time job, it is sub-optimal, it is not exactly what they are looking for. However, those contracts are often a great starting point for somebody coming back into work, and they have their uses. 

Owen Smith:  On zero-hours contracts, does the Secretary of State not think that there is a correlation between the approximately 74,000 people in Wales on zero-hours contracts and the 80,000 people in Wales who feel that they are under-employed and would like to work more hours? Would he also comment on this morning’s news from the ONS that prices are now officially outstripping wages by six to one? 

Stephen Crabb:  On wages, the hon. Gentleman is looking at UK figures. We are interested in what is going on in the Welsh economy. 

Owen Smith:  The Welsh situation is probably worse. 

Stephen Crabb:  We will look at the Welsh figures when we can. Again, the hon. Gentleman makes the point about zero-hours contracts, but if the Labour party is so concerned about them, why do so many Labour-run councils make liberal use of them? In the Leader of the Opposition’s own back yard, his local authority is the biggest user of them, so there is a lot of hypocrisy coming from Labour on zero-hours contracts.

David T. C. Davies:  Is it not the case that those Labour authorities are absolutely right to be using zero-hours contracts? If they can find 20 or 30 hours of work a week for someone but not quite 40 hours, it is surely better to give them 20 or 30 hours of work than no job at all. Provided that we get rid of exclusivity requirements, the system will be perfectly fair. 

Stephen Crabb:  I understand my hon. Friend’s point. It is important that we root out abuses of these contracts. We do not want people being exploited in the workplace or pressured into accepting contracts that they would not otherwise wish to take. However, for many these contracts represent the kind of working conditions that they want. Often young mums who are returning to work and who want just a few hours’ work each week to get back into the labour market find such contracts ideal. They are not ideal for everyone however and it is important that we root out abuses where they occur. 

To return to the Government’s legislative programme, the Infrastructure Bill will increase investment in infrastructure and enhance our energy independence. Subject to consultation, the Bill will support the development of gas and oil from shale and geothermal energy and potentially deliver the equivalent of up to 4 billion barrels of oil in the next 20 years. It will also introduce the right for communities to be offered the chance to buy a stake in new, commercial renewable schemes. With this strengthening measure we will continue to build an economy that rewards those who work hard. 

The pensions tax Bill, which we will introduce later in the Session, will give much greater choice and flexibility to people at the point of retirement to decide how they spend or invest their pension savings. The Pension Schemes Bill will encourage innovation in the private pensions market and give people saving for retirement the choice to join collective schemes that pool risk between members. 

By 2037, one in four in Wales will be over 65, which is nearly 300,000 more people than now. Those people should have as much choice as possible in how they save for retirement and how they access the benefits they have saved. The Government will give them that choice. 

As well as our work to build a prosperous society, we are continuing our work to build a fairer society. We have introduced the Childcare Payments Bill to help families with child care costs. One of the biggest challenges faced by working families is finding affordable child care and the Bill will give support equivalent to basic tax relief up to a maximum of £2,000 a year for each child. 

Hywel Williams:  Hon. Members of all parties will welcome the payments proposed in the Childcare Payments Bill. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the new system will increase the supply of child care and not just the ability of parents to pay for it? We have supply-side issues as well, particularly in disadvantaged and rural areas. 

Stephen Crabb:  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He has asked other Ministers how we will increase the supply of affordable child care in rural communities in particular. The Bill will make a contribution to that but we can take other steps and I look forward to talking about that with him in more detail. 

The Serious Crime Bill will give law enforcement agencies more powers to deal with serious and organised crime and ensure that those who commit serious crimes do not profit from them. It will also strengthen the protection of children by making it explicit that the offence of child cruelty includes cruelty that causes psychological harm. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion for his sterling work in raising awareness of that. 

The Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill will reform and strengthen the complaints system in our armed forces and ensure that we can support the charities and benevolent organisations that provide so much vital support to personnel in our armed forces. 

The Modern Slavery Bill will strengthen the law to prevent modern slavery and human trafficking and improve support for victims of such crimes. The Bill will create an anti-slavery commissioner to ensure a more co-ordinated response to law enforcement. The

commissioner will work closely with the anti-slavery co-ordinator in Wales, and we are working with the Welsh Government to agree how other provisions in the Bill will link up with that important role.

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill will ensure that the 1 million people in Wales who volunteer their time to help others, and those who provide help in emergencies such as the floods that affected communities across Wales last winter, are better protected in the event of legal action should anything go wrong. 

The recall of MPs Bill, which we will introduce later in the Session, will put in place a mechanism by which MPs can be recalled in certain circumstances, and I am exploring with the Presiding Officer whether such a mechanism is desirable in the Assembly. 

Jonathan Edwards:  If a mechanism is introduced that leaves the power to recall in the hands of Westminster, will that not undermine public confidence even more than not having a recall Bill? If we are to have a recall measure, surely it should be for electors to initiate the mechanism, rather than a Westminster Committee. 

Stephen Crabb:  I encourage the hon. Gentleman to wait and see the exact provisions of the Bill. There will be debate on the issue at the appropriate time. The introduction of such a Bill is an important step forward, and we need to look at all kinds of ways—not only the Bill, but other steps—of improving the standing of this place in the eyes of the public. 

Paul Flynn:  Will the Minister give way? 

Stephen Crabb:  No, I will not give way again. We must allow time for others to speak. 

Last, but by no means least, the Wales Bill is continuing its parliamentary passage in this Session, delivering more powers over taxation and borrowing to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to provide incentives and opportunities for the Welsh Government to grow the Welsh economy and increase prosperity. I am pleased that the Bill will receive its Second Reading in the Lords next week. 

As Secretary of State, I intend to work closely with the Welsh Government on all aspects of our legislative programme to ensure that Welsh interests are fully taken into account as legislation is developed. My office is already working with other Whitehall Departments and the Welsh Government on that, and in the coming weeks I will be talking to ministerial colleagues and Welsh Ministers to build on that work. 

Our legislative programme builds on the work we have done since 2010 to rebalance the economy, create sustainable growth and make society fairer for all our citizens. It is a programme that benefits people in Wales and people right across the United Kingdom. It clearly shows the benefits we all derive from being part of a strong and united kingdom. Only by continuing our long-term economic plan, which has delivered positive momentum through growth in private sector employment, rising wages and investment in critical infrastructure in Wales, will we ensure that Wales continues to be at the heart of the UK’s economic recovery. Ours is a legislative programme that does that, and I commend it to the Committee. 

10.8 am 

Owen Smith:  As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I extend my warm congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Minister on their new positions; we wish them well in their jobs. We also extend our thanks to the former Secretary of State for the work he did in the role. I know that the new Secretary of State is a great Welshman who is very proud of his Welsh roots, and I am sure that he will take great pride in his job, whatever he may have written about it when in opposition. 

Having looked at this morning’s papers, I think we can say that the Secretary of State has already made his mark. Several Members have noted that the reason he has done so in this era of great profundity is not his erudition, although no doubt he is erudite, or his trenchant views about devolution, but his beard—his whiskers. Other Members have noted that the last time a Conservative member of the Cabinet had such splendid facial hair was 1905. Of course, Labour beards have been written out of the press this morning—they are clearly 10 a penny, what with Blunkett, Cook, Darling, Clarke, Dobson and others—but Tory beards are rather rarer. By way of fraternal well wishes to the Secretary of State I thought I would offer a few observations on the auguries of his beard, and on its connection to 1905 and the last Conservative Member to sport such facial hair, the Earl of Onslow, whom the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd mentioned earlier. 

Of course, as the new Secretary of State will know as he is a great rugby fan like me, 1905 bodes well for Wales. It was a splendid year for us. It was the year when the Welsh team, powered by the Rhondda forwards, beat the unbeatable, as they thought, All Blacks for the first time. The score was 3-0, the scoreline I am working towards on Welsh Secretaries. Politically, however, 1905 may bode less well for the Secretary of State as the Earl of Onslow was in power for only a few months before the coalition Government were turned out in ignominy after cracking apart under the pressure of reforming public services and failing to balance budgets. The aftermath was the return of Labour Members of Parliament: the first Labour Member in Wales, Keir Hardie; 29 Labour Members—a tenfold increase. I then reflected that this historical analogy may not be entirely accurate because the great beneficiaries of that period were the Liberals, which I do not imagine will happen in the future. 

Back to the present, and the Queen’s Speech: the present is a bit easier to read. What we had a while back now, and debated today, was a Queen’s Speech that purported to be a promise to build a fairer society. I have read through the speech quite carefully and looked at the measures and I confess that I see precious little in it. I heard precious little today from the new Secretary of State, with the greatest respect, to persuade me that it is anything other than an attempt to present a veneer of fairness. 

There was mention of the minimum wage and fines for non-payment, which are extremely welcome. There was mention of improving those fines. There was mention of speeding up employment tribunals. Again, that is very welcome. There was mention of increased finance for small businesses, apprenticeships, and pensions reform, which the Secretary of State said little about but was the centrepiece of the Queen’s Speech, and welfare reform.

But a cursory glance at all the detail of those Bills shows that there is very little of substance—that the veneer is pretty thin and cracked in many parts. 

As I mentioned earlier, the ONS report shows that inflation is now outstripping wages in Wales, as across the rest of country I am sure, by six to one. The Secretary of State talked partially about the relative increase of wages in Wales versus the rest of the UK. He is right. Wages have risen marginally faster in Wales than in the rest of the UK, but he knows that is from an extraordinarily low base. He knows too that the ground that has not been made up since the crash of 2008-09 has in no way been met by the recent rise. 

Stephen Crabb:  The hon. Gentleman is referring to the destruction of value in real wages that happened following the crash of 2008. Does he accept that his party should apologise for that destruction of real wage levels? 

Owen Smith:  No, I do not for a minute accept that the Labour party should apologise for a global crash in financial markets caused by a sub-prime disaster in America, sparking a crisis in banks. Nor should the party apologise for the decisions by the last Labour Prime Minister to lead the world in shoring up our banks, which, of course, has led to a deficit in British public finances, which any Government would need to get down. However, we know beyond doubt that wages in Wales leave each family 1,600 quid worse off at the end of this Parliament than they were at the beginning. Despite the rises, people are net worse off. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that taking into account all the tax and benefit changes, each family in Wales is £974 worse off. Wales already has the lowest disposable incomes and the lowest wages in the UK, a result of our industrial heritage, geography, demography and distance from London. Some 80,000 people in Wales are using food banks—a 120% increase in the last year alone. 

Stephen Crabb:  Will the shadow Secretary of State inform the Committee whether he agrees or disagrees with wage restraint across the public sector? 

Owen Smith:  As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the shadow Chancellor has made it clear that in the current Parliament we would not shift from the Government’s position. We accept the need for wage constraint across the board in the public sector in order to try to pay down the deficit. We have accepted that we would stick to spending constraint on structural funding in the first year of the next Government. The Queen’s Speech, of course, contains little that will improve wage rates in Wales. In fact, it contains nothing, so increasing the fines for not paying the minimum wage, welcome though it is, will do precious little to improve the economic well-being of people in Wales. When the number of fines across the whole UK can be counted on the fingers of two hands, we do not hold out much hope of that increase being effective. 

Stephen Crabb:  The shadow Secretary of State says that he agrees with the shadow Chancellor on wage restraint in the public sector. Why, then, did he support the public sector strikes last week? Is that not another

example of an ambitious Labour politician saying one thing in Westminster and another to his trade union mates back in the constituency? 

Owen Smith:  I was not talking to trade union mates in my constituency, although I have plenty of trade union mates in my constituency to whom I like to talk. The hon. Gentleman will find that I was talking to the nation on national television, and I said that I completely understood the legitimacy of people taking strike action and the motivations to do so. I do not resile from that for one minute, nor do I think that the two sets of remarks are mutually exclusive. 

Welfare reform is also mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. The new Secretary of State takes great interest in that subject, which he knows something about from his past, his background and the constituency he represents. His constituency has pockets of real poverty, as do all our constituencies, and he really wants to incentivise people to move from welfare into work. I fully accept that, but he must also know that the policies his Government have implemented are having a blunt and detrimental effect on the life chances and life opportunities of people in his constituency. He does not need to believe me to know that; he simply needs to read his Government’s reports, because the Government have already conceded in the initial impact assessment that Wales is harder hit by the bedroom tax, the Government’s signature welfare policy, than any other part of the UK. 

Some 40,000 families in Wales are hit by the bedroom tax, of whom 25,000 are disabled. Only yesterday, under the cover of the reshuffle, the Government shamefully snuck out a further interim assessment of the impact of the Department for Work and Pensions bedroom tax policy, which shows once more that Wales is hit far harder than other parts of the UK. I have a few metrics to demonstrate that. On average, across the UK, 27% of local authorities are having to top up, out of their own resources, the discretionary housing payments made available by the Government in order to meet the need in communities due to the imposition of the bedroom tax; in Wales it is 54%, which is double the UK average. 

Across the whole UK, fewer than 20% of social landlords say that they are having difficulty rehousing families because of the nature of their housing stock, which is a point we made repeatedly to the Secretary of State’s predecessor, given the nature of our housing stock in Wales and the volume of three-bedroom social houses in particular, as well as the volume of four-bedroom and two-bedroom social houses; in Wales, the figure is 60%, which is more than three times the number across the rest of the UK. Across the whole UK, according to the Government, 60% of families affected by the bedroom tax are currently in arrears, and 20% have not yet paid back a single penny of the additional money that they owe as a result of the changes. 

The DWP did not conduct more than one interview in Wales, so it did not look very hard to find people affected by the welfare reforms, but I will read an excerpt from that one interview: 

“There’s weeks I’m struggling…so sometimes on a Tuesday [my mum will] buy me a couple of groceries, but we get money every two weeks and on the second week that’s basically when we’re struggling. And I’ve had to tell the family…to cut down Christmas because I’ve got…grandkids and I've had to cut right back because I can’t afford to give them [anything]… I’ve not even

got any Christmas shopping or anything, just…food basically, just can’t afford it… It’s going to be even harder this year because the gas and electricity”. 

That is the one case study that the DWP bothered to find in Wales. I do not know where it was, but it might be in my constituency or in the Secretary of State’s constituency. 

The Queen’s Speech also promises to “continue” the reforms of the gas and electricity markets. In Wales, the reality is that we have the highest gas and electricity prices anywhere in the UK. The Queen’s Speech contains nothing to prevent those energy prices from continuing to spiral and nothing to match Labour’s promise to freeze prices and institute wholesale reform. 

The Queen’s Speech also promises to deal with apprenticeships, but the reality is that the Welsh Government’s efforts far outstrip those of the UK Government, which the hon. Gentleman represents. Between 2011-12 and 2012-13, the number of apprenticeships in England went down by 2%, whereas in Wales it went up by 56% from 18,000 to 28,000. Again, Wales outperformed England on that measure. 

Jonathan Edwards:  Are not the statistics that the hon. Gentleman cites primarily down to Plaid Cymru’s Budget deals at the previous Budget negotiations, which ensured greater investment in apprenticeships in Wales? 

Owen Smith:  If they are, I commend the Plaid Cymru Ministers in the previous coalition Government with Labour for implementing such a sensible policy. I commend the current Labour Administration in Wales for maintaining and enhancing that policy and, under our excellent First Minister, making it pay for people across Wales. 

Business needs to make things pay, too, and the Queen’s Speech includes further measures for lending to small businesses. However, the truth is that the Government have had successive failures on that front. There have been successive schemes with fancy names—some, such as Project Merlin, even sound Welsh—but they have all failed. Project Merlin failed, funding for lending failed—it was down £700 million last year—and net lending to small and medium-sized enterprises across the UK and in Wales is down £3.2 billion. 

The Queen’s Speech also promised to address fairness in the workplace by speeding up employment tribunals, but the problem with our tribunal system is not speed but the fact that people are being priced out of being able to take their employers to tribunal. We have seen a dramatic drop in the number of employment tribunals in Britain, which the Government parade as a victory. However, workers are increasingly insecure because of zero-hours contracts, lower wages and rising prices. We do not believe that is fair, or that the pernicious policy of shares for rights will help, which is why Labour will repeal it if we win. 

A significant chunk of the Queen’s Speech pertained to pensions. It promised to liberate pension pots for people, scrap annuities and give people access to their money—at the time, the Chancellor said he was giving people back their money. Our view is that those policies might work. The annuities market needs to be reformed; we were calling for its reform before the Government’s announcement. However, there are grave concerns that people will get poor advice, that it will not be fair to all

savers and that it may cost the taxpayer money in the long run. Those concerns come not only from the Labour Benches; there is growing concern internationally and in the UK. The OECD’s chief economist warned a few weeks ago that the policy risks penury for pensioners. UK pensions bodies have similarly warned about the impact of pensioners withdrawing their savings early and not having enough money to live on. Only last week, the Government’s own actuary, Chris Daykin, who has served for more than 20 years under Labour and Tory Governments and is one of the world’s leading experts, warned that the policy is simply about generating tax revenues for the Exchequer and risks impoverishing pensioners. 

Jonathan Evans:  Although I am making an intervention, I should draw attention to the fact that I have interests in this area. 

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the policy will cost the taxpayer. In reality, the Red Book says it will raise £8 billion for the taxpayer. Is that not a reason for ensuring that the advice mechanism is right? Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge the Government’s policy, which is to consult widely and endeavour to get the process in place in good time before April? It is important that all the people who will be affected are aware of it and that the Opposition work with the Government to achieve it. 

Owen Smith:  Absolutely the Opposition will work with the Government to examine and scrutinise the effect of these policies to try to get them right. As I said, it may be that we fully support the policies if the Government get them right. However, the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me, because the Red Book shows that, in the short term, a result will be increased receipts for the Exchequer. 

Chris Daykin, who was the Government Actuary for 20 years, warned that the real motivation for bringing forward receipts was to paint a better picture on deficit reduction, given that the Government are having to undertake an extra £190 billion of borrowing and that the deficit will be 74% of GDP when the they leave office because of their failure to meet the economic long-term plan. He further warned that bringing forward those receipts might in the long run lead to a net cost to the Exchequer through pensioners without annuities spending their money early and running out of cash. Of course, pensions are by definition meant to provide retirement income for their members until they die. This measure risks that not being the case. 

Paul Flynn:  Is it significant that the words used by the new Secretary of State were virtually identical to those used by Tony Newton in the late ’80s when introducing personal pensions, which resulted in £11 billion being paid in compensation to the 6 million people who were defrauded by the previous Tory pension experiment? 

Owen Smith:  My hon. Friend makes a fair analogy. We all remember the pensions mis-selling scandal, which is why we are so concerned about ensuring that that is not repeated in the current legislation. 

I will turn briefly to Wales and devolution because, as the Secretary of State concluded, the Queen’s Speech also makes reference to the continuing passage of the Wales Bill and it is now for him to carry that through to enactment. It is ironic that, in his former role, he was at the forefront of attacking me for misgivings about aspects of the Bill that I suggested endangered the unity of the UK, such as tax competition, given that that is exactly what he is seen to have been warning about in the articles in the newspapers yesterday and today that also mention his deep-seated scepticism about devolution. 

There will now be challenges as to what the Secretary of State’s views are about devolution, because only a few years ago, when in opposition, he wrote: 

“I remain a ‘devo-sceptic’…Over the last ten years my opposition to devolution in Scotland and Wales has been driven by”— 

blah, blah, blah. He laments the fact that it is no longer saleable to call for abolition of the devolved Administrations and he goes on—I particularly like this piece—to say: 

“Although other colleagues in the party have reversed their previous opposition to devolution, I maintain that the devolution experience so far has proved rather than disproved my original concerns”— 

about its worth to the people of Wales. That is not a particularly enlightened view of devolution; in fact, that is perhaps more worthy of the Earl of Onslow than someone in 2014. 

Stephen Crabb:  I commend the shadow Secretary of State for his internet research skills. If he had read the full article, he would have seen that one of the suggestions I made for making effective the unbalanced devolution that the previous Labour Government had left Wales with was bringing forward fiscal devolution. Perhaps he could give me a little bit of credit for being slightly ahead of my time in recognising that important next step for devolution. 

Owen Smith:  I will take great delight in giving the Secretary of State credit for that, because I have read his article in detail and repeatedly—I have even underlined key parts. He is right that in it he does talk about the need for greater stability and symmetry—dare I say it, that is a phrase that I have used repeatedly. He was calling for fiscal devolution, while I have been drawing attention to the need for greater symmetry between Wales and Scotland in respect of the devolution settlement. 

That brings me to the Supreme Court’s ruling last week on the Agricultural Wages Board. In that ruling, other than the inequity of the Government trying to do down the wages and terms and conditions of 13,000 of the lowest-paid people in Wales—including some in the Secretary of State’s constituency and fewer in mine—the crucial thing revealed in constitutional terms was the need for further revision of the devolution settlement. I suggest that that made the case quite clearly for a more symmetrical system between Wales and Scotland. That is why Labour has called for the Wales Bill to be revised to include the first steps towards a reserved-powers model of devolution for Wales, akin to that offered in Scotland. I urge him to consider that and to shift from the position of opposition that was taken by his predecessor and the Government. 

In conclusion, we have a new Secretary of State for Wales and we wish him well. We have an opportunity for a new start in the relationship between Wales and

the UK Government here at Westminster. I think it is true to say that many people in Wales have been disheartened by the level of acrimony between politicians in Wales and Westminster, and perhaps even between those across this aisle in recent years. This is an opportunity to address that. In his prescient former days, the Secretary of State warned of the dangers of there being different-coloured Governments in Wales and Westminster: 

“Just wait until there is a Conservative Government in London”— 

and Labour in power in Wales— 

“and then the full anti-Westminster venom will be unleashed in a spectacular way.” 

He was half right, because the venom has all come from his party, in the form of the bile we have heard from successive Ministers. 

Stephen Crabb:  Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Owen Smith:  In a moment. That bile includes the Prime Minister’s disgraceful reference to Offa’s dyke as a line between life and death. Before the Secretary of State gets to his feet, I offer him an opportunity here and now to disavow that statement and to tell the people of Wales that he does not agree that Offa’s dyke is a line between line and death. 

Stephen Crabb:  When I hear a Welsh Labour Minister in Cardiff describe welfare reforms that improve the life chances and opportunities of our most disadvantaged constituents as a “social atrocity”, using such inflammatory language, it is an example of what I referred to in the article I wrote in my younger years. We should use this opportunity to draw a line under all this and restore a much more constructive tone in our dialogue, to work towards achieving positive things for the people and businesses in Wales, because that is what they are looking for. 

Owen Smith:  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. He did not take the opportunity to disavow his Prime Minister; perhaps that was hoping too much. The Prime Minister has now used Wales as a byword for failure 30 times at Prime Minister’s questions. That tarnishing of our brand at home and abroad is profoundly damaging to Wales and to the Union of the UK that I know the Secretary of State and I support. I suspect that he, like me, is uncomfortable with that. In fact, I think I read in today’s newspapers that he is more uncomfortable with that sort of attack than his predecessors, and I will take him at his word that we are moving on to a new chapter. 

David T. C. Davies:  Does the hon. Gentleman think that attacks by Labour Members of Parliament on the NHS in England undermine the brand of Englishness or the doctors and nurses working very hard in the NHS in England? 

Owen Smith:  There has been a sustained attack and critique in recent months—frankly, it stretches back years—using Welsh public services and the performance of the Welsh Government as a proxy for an attack on the Labour party. It is a tawdry, Conservative campaign headquarters, Lynton Crosby-inspired strategy to demean Wales in order to score political points. I am absolutely clear about that. In reality, while there are great challenges

for public services in Wales—many of which are linked to the history, demography, geography, industrial heritage and greater proportion of disabled people in Wales—none of those complexities or nuances are reflected in an attack that simply says, “Wales equals failure” and “Wales equals Labour.” That is all the current Government have tried to do. 

Stephen Crabb  rose—  

Owen Smith:  I will give way to the Secretary of State one more time but I urge him, in this new spirit, to talk to the Prime Minister about how he has used and abused PMQs and urge him to desist. 

Stephen Crabb:  If I might say so to the shadow Secretary of State, there is something a little ridiculous about what he is saying. While we have been debating this morning, a colleague from his own party, a Member from Wales, has been giving evidence to a Select Committee on some of the challenges and problems in the Welsh NHS. Rather than using war on Wales rhetoric as a fig leaf to shut down scrutiny and close down debate about the performance of public services, we should be welcoming the spotlight of scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman needs to show a bit more ambition for Wales. Welsh people deserve a lot better—they deserve the very best—and we should not settle for sub-optimal standards in Wales. 

Owen Smith:  I resent and reject the notion that I will ever show anything less than absolute ambition for Wales, and for the people the Secretary of State and I represent. There are substantive differences between the views of an individual Labour Member who had particular concerns about her experiences in the NHS and the blanket subversion and use of such concerns to try to crank up what I have described as a demeaning attack on public services in Wales. Nevertheless, we can draw a line under that issue at this point. 

In conclusion, they say that one of the measures of whether someone is getting old and starting to feel it is when policemen start to be younger than them; an even more compelling and depressing measure of age is when the Secretary of State one shadows is younger than oneself—not by much, mind you, but a little, and with a better beard than I sport. At least he is, like his colleague on the Front Bench, a decent dap for a Welshman. Gwyn Thomas, the great Rhondda writer, said that in Wales we measure men from the neck up—by their words and by their deeds. The Secretary of State can rest assured that we will measure him according to that yardstick in Wales. 

10.36 am 

Mr Llwyd:  It is a great pleasure to serve under your able chairmanship once more, Mr Owen. I begin by reiterating all the congratulations to the new Secretary of State for Wales and his deputy. I wish them both well and hope that, over the coming months, we will be able to develop a useful partnership to assist the people of Wales and improve matters as we all see them. 

I did not intend to enter into the NHS debate, but I want to make one or two comments pursuant to the exchanges we have just heard. Things on both sides of the border are not terribly bright. There are problems,

and a reasonable discussion of them is perfectly acceptable. We cannot simply block out problems as we see them on either side of the border. It is only right that some queries should be raised. It is interesting to note that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley was refused the right to give evidence to a Labour Committee in Cardiff. I am not sure that that is right at all. 

I am not going to enter into the debate with any stinted view one way or t’other, but it is entirely appropriate to examine in measured language how the NHS is performing on both sides of the border. We should not say that everything is fine on one side but not on the other—that is patently ridiculous. For example, we heard that 40% of hospital trusts in England are in special measures, so things need improving there as well. Let us not pretend that it is all great on one side and bad on the other; that is patently ridiculous and not a reflection of reality. 

It seems slightly strange for the Welsh Grand Committee to be discussing the Queen’s Speech so many weeks after Her Majesty’s address. I hope that the assembled press and media will have their interest rekindled. I am probably not supposed to speculate, but those members of the press and media present are looking very excited, ready and up for it—God knows. 

Despite there being in the Queen’s Speech some notable Bills that we welcome, on the whole the content was rather thin, with little to answer the growing challenges of the day: rising inequality, regional disparities, and an economic recovery that is built on a fairly precarious foundation. Despite the Government’s tedious assertion, which we heard again today, that they have a long-term economic plan—we also know about hard-working families and all the rest of the rhetoric—all the indicators are that they have failed to rebalance the economy in the way promised three years ago and that they appear to have inflated another housing boom, which could well turn into another bust at some point—perhaps engineered for after the election, depending on when interest rates rise and whether wages rise significantly. The impacts on and consequences for Wales are fairly obvious, because we have, unfortunately, higher rates of sickness and disability; a higher proportion of elderly people; and greater needs in respect of poverty, with little hope in the Queen’s Speech of a bright new future. 

Given the nature of the Queen’s Speech, I fear that the coming year will be a matter of treading water; indeed, we have been treading water for several months now. Whether it is the inertia of the fixed-term Parliament or the inertia of difficulties in a Cabinet made up of two parties, I know not. For Wales, we have the continuation of the Wales Bill in the House of Lords, where I hope the Government will see sense and amend it to remove the lockstep measure and ensure a better deal for Wales, as the debate in Scotland possibly outstrips the relevance of the Bill’s content. However, we will have to wait and see. 

I believe that the Secretary of State is a pragmatic politician. He has indicated today that his mind is not closed about certain changes that might be made through the Wales Bill. That is encouraging, and I hope that we will be able to build on that. I know that colleagues on both sides of the Committee have strong feelings about

the need to improve the Bill, and I sincerely hope that we will have a dialogue with the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary on that issue. 

There are other matters of particular concern to Wales, not least the funding of the Welsh Government. The ongoing injustice of a shortfall of more than £400 million persists. As we all know, the independent Holtham commission has concluded that Wales could lose up to £8.5 billion over this decade, which the Westminster parties have failed to rectify, despite now acknowledging it. 

I also fear that the legislative year ahead will see further dismantling of the principles of the welfare state, dismantling of public services, and a failure to address our deep structural economic weaknesses, with a recovery driven by an increase in personal debt and spiralling house prices in the south-east and in London, to which I alluded a moment ago. From a Welsh viewpoint, it is business as usual, and it continues the UK’s long-term imbalance that has ignored the economic needs of Wales and parts of England and Scotland. 

However, there are some positive points in the Government’s legislative programme. We in Plaid Cymru welcome wholeheartedly the Modern Slavery Bill, which is now making its way through the House. It is a bold and useful measure, and it attracts full support from throughout the House. It is intended to end the criminalisation of victims of human trafficking and enslavement. 

Elsewhere, we welcome the proposals to strengthen the law on child neglect—I acknowledge what was said about the hon. Member for Ceredigion—and on organised crime, which are valuable. 

I particularly welcome the Bill to strengthen the complaints procedures for individuals in the armed forces. I have campaigned for a long time on issues related to veterans and armed service personnel, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder and post-service rights. We support the proposed measure and hope that it will contribute towards preventing ex-service people from suffering avoidable mental distress and psychological and psychiatric conditions. We also hope that it will, crucially, enable us to cater for people who have put themselves in the line of fire and risked everything on our behalf. We owe it to them to ensure that, when they come back, their needs are met. They have, to a large extent, special needs that need meeting. I understand—the hon. Member for Pontypridd may correct me—that one of my signature ideas, about a veterans’ court, may well be in the Labour manifesto in the coming months, and I am delighted that that be so. 

Other Bills contained in the Queen’s Speech appear appealing at first glance but are revealed to be wanting upon slightly closer inspection. The case in point is the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, which seems likely to garner good headlines in certain sections of the press. However, I share the TUC’s fear that it might have a bad effect on health and safety legislation and working conditions in particularly dangerous or hazardous industries. 

When the Government’s proposals to change the annuities system are before the House of Commons, we will call for proper consumer protection for people who have large pots of money at their disposal. I pause there to say that I am not claiming in a paternalistic way that

they are not capable of looking after themselves. That is not the point. We are all concerned that their hard-earned pension accruals should be put to good use, and that is the point we are making. I know the sharks will be circling in anticipation—I do not include the hon. Member for Cardiff North in that description. 

Jonathan Evans:  I do not want the impression to continue that there are people with very large pension pots. The vast majority of these pension pots are, sadly, barely £20,000. That can be a marked loss for a number of disadvantaged people. It is the people at that end who are in danger, not the people the Pensions Minister was talking about when he said he was comfortable with them blowing the money on a Lamborghini. 

Mr Llwyd:  Well, I myself do not like Lamborghinis; they tend to break down. I had better ask the Chair if I am covered by privilege, or that is my pension pot gone.  

I note what the hon. Member for Cardiff North says and I am sure he is right on that point. However, there are some who will have substantial draw-downs, and they might decide to put money in property. That in due course might further inflate the housing bubble. I accept what he says, but the Bill has to be carefully scrutinised because it could be a stark reminder that legislation is often introduced with the best possible motives but falls foul of the law of unintended consequences. 

My party is greatly concerned by the Government’s Infrastructure Bill, which will enable the expansion of hydraulic fracturing—or fracking, as it has become known—in pursuit of shale gas. We oppose the process root and branch, because we do not believe that the technology has been proven entirely safe. We know that there have been instances in the United States and Canada where huge swathes of land have been ruined and devastated by the employment of fracking practices. The process is also dependent on a huge amount of water. 

As ever, we have put forward an alternative Queen’s Speech with some Bills that we would have liked to have seen included. They centre on our vision for Wales, which is built on equality, prosperity for all and, crucially, social justice. We had 10 ambitious and workable Bills founded on strengthening Wales’s economic and democratic position, and on improving thereby the lives of the people of Wales. 

I will turn briefly to our proposals. We put forward an economic fairness Bill aimed at levelling up the growing wealth inequalities that exist on both an individual and a geographical basis in the UK, which is the most unequal state in the European Union. Such a Bill would mirror the part of the German constitution that commits to regional equalisation and redistribution and prioritises poorer areas for infrastructure and foreign direct investment. 

We would also have welcomed a Bill to ensure that Wales is fairly funded on the basis of need—a matter I referred to earlier—and that the underfunding highlighted by the Holtham commission is addressed. I am tired of listening to the squirming by parties on this issue, saying in opposition that they believe it should be rectified and the Barnett formula reformed, only to leave it be when in Government. 

We were greatly disappointed, though perhaps not surprised, that the Government botched the chance to outlaw zero-hours contracts completely. We would have

brought forward an employment rights Bill to adopt measures to protect and empower workers, establish a living wage commission, end zero-hours contracts, appoint employees to remuneration committees and prevent employers from undercutting the domestic work force by exploiting migrant workers for cheap labour. 

I note that the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which has its Second Reading this afternoon, is aimed at tackling the exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. That is a good thing, but we would ban those exploitative contracts outright. Flexible working was possible before the proliferation of that type of contract, so it is wholly misleading to say that it makes it possible. 

Another Bill that we would have liked to see included in the Queen’s Speech, with specific reference to Wales, is a natural resources Bill— not to embarrass the Labour Welsh Government, who were last week forced to sack their Minister with that portfolio for persistent breaking of the ministerial code, but for the much more worthy cause of transferring responsibility for all of Wales’s natural resources, including those of the Crown Estate, from Westminster to Wales. 

As all Members here are aware, Wales, regrettably, is a very poor part of the UK in terms of gross value added per head, although thankfully it is improving from a rather low base. The ability to control and sustainably exploit our natural resources for the public good could significantly improve the economic standing of the people of Wales. A natural resources Bill would ensure that Wales had full and complete power over its water resources up to the boundary with England. It would end the London Government’s ability to intervene in Wales in relation to water, which the right hon. Member for Neath had written into the Government of Wales Act 2006. That is particularly pertinent now given the Government’s plans to frack in north-west England. Fracking requires huge amounts of water, and we are concerned that Welsh water could be unfairly raided without fair recompense to the people of Wales while Westminster tax receipt coffers grow. 

We would also have liked more direct support in the Queen’s Speech for the tourism and hospitality industry, in the form of a cut in VAT. I sincerely believe—I have held this view for many years—that a cut in VAT on tourism services would be a huge step forward for Wales. I know that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will be aware of the huge importance of the tourism industry to Wales. If we could improve that sector we would really get things moving. 

Mr Mark Williams:  The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that we are one of only two countries in the EU—the other is Denmark—that do not take advantage of the provision to boost our tourist sector. In his constituency, like in mine, the potential for job creation is immense. 

Mr Llwyd:  Yes, it is huge. As a matter of interest, the tourism sector is the largest employer in Wales. It roughly equates to the numbers in the mining industry in the heyday of coal mining in Wales. It is that big, and it is potentially growing. I had a very good friend over from Brittany last year. I was a little bit nervous taking him around various places, knowing that the Bretons and

the French are pretty good on gastronomy. I was pleased to say that at the end of the week he said, “Do you know, the average restaurant in north Wales is far better than where I live in southern Brittany?” I have been there as well and I could hardly believe what he was saying, and he was genuine about it. We have improved immensely. There is room for further improvement, and we can do that. 

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have raised this matter year on year for I do not know how long. When I first started raising it we found that French VAT was far lower on tourism services and Irish VAT was also lower. We in Wales found that we were losing out to our two direct competitors simply by dint of that. We can think creatively about the matter, but we were rebuffed then because we were told that the European Union rules would forbid it. The hon. Gentleman has just pointed out that that is not the case. It can be done, and I only wish the Government would do it. I hope that, in the coming months, I will be able to have a serious and full dialogue with Ministers from the Wales Office, because it could be a crucial step forward for Wales. 

Hywel Williams:  On a point of information, the European rules changed in 2008 at ECOFIN in Helsinki, attended by our then Chancellor. It is, I think, a massive regret to my right hon. Friend, me and many people in tourism that neither the then Labour Government nor the current Government has taken advantage of that facility, whereas our European competitors have clearly done so, to their benefit. 

Mr Llwyd:  It is to their benefit, and it is a classic case of cutting a tax in a selected area and getting more for it. Cutting VAT on tourism services in Wales is, surely, one such case that is patently obvious to all. I hope that we might be able to pursue that and, through the all-party group on the tourism and hospitality industry in Wales, liaise with Ministers and drive it forward. 

Going back to the alternative Queen’s Speech, I would have liked to see a victims’ rights Bill included in the Government’s legislative programme, giving rights to the victims of crime so that they no longer feel marginalised by the justice system. That has been called for by a number of high-profile justice system figures, including the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer; its time has come. In addition, I would like to have seen a domestic violence Bill, aiming to criminalise all aspects of domestic violence through statutory underpinning of the Government’s definition of it. The Bill would recognise that the definition can include behaviours that are controlling or coercive, as well as obvious physical violence. 

Members will need no reminding that both my party and I are firm advocates of a Welsh policing and justice jurisdiction. We would have liked to see a Bill in the Queen’s Speech to amend schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 so that it includes the administration of justice. Provisions could be included in the Bill for the establishment of an independent prosecution service in Wales and for the administration of the courts to be determined in Wales. It is an anomaly that we have a law-making body, yet no specifically Welsh legal and justice jurisdiction. The Silk commission said that it is

not a question of if but of when, and its view is that both Governments—in Wales and here—must come together in, I think, the next eight years. I argue that its time has come, but I am a realist. I know that it will take some time to set up properly, and that these things can fail, but we need a serious debate on that. 

In marked contrast to the Infrastructure Bill that appeared in the Queen’s Speech, instead of focusing on fracking, Plaid Cymru would have liked a genuine Infrastructure Bill, which would allow investment in Welsh infrastructure projects to revolutionise our transport network—incidentally, it is still without a single mile of electrified rail track—and ensure that Wales gets a fair share from expenditure on England-only projects such as Crossrail and HS2. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr has done much good work in highlighting the ongoing injustice of denying Wales such consequential investment. 

Until recently, the Government’s retort had been that Wales was getting the Great Western line to Swansea electrified. Well, oh dear. That seems to be falling apart at the seams just now, not to mention the ongoing need to electrify beyond there to Fishguard and, crucially, to electrify the north Wales main line to Holyhead. 

Stephen Crabb:  On a point of clarity, the electrification project for the Great West main line through to Swansea is not falling apart at the seams. That commitment is still there, and we are taking it forward, but there is a particularly difficult challenge to do with valleys electrification. The Great Western main line is not a problem. 

Mr Llwyd:  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that assurance, and I hope that at some point we can look at the valleys question and the crucial question of electrification of the north Wales line through to Holyhead. I am sure that that is a sensible debate for another day. It is rather strange that, in Wales, we are on a par with Moldova and Albania in having no electrified track—something that has been called for for many years. I was reminded recently that Gwynfor Evans, Plaid Cymru’s first Member of Parliament, was asking those questions in the 1960s. Here we are still asking the same questions. When the day comes when we have electrification in Wales, I for one will probably be on the train with a small glass of champagne, but who knows? I might not even be here, although I sincerely hope I am. I am pleased by what I have just heard from the Secretary of State about that, because it is important that we have first-class infrastructure, which means a first-class transport system, if we are to boost the economy of Wales. 

Last, but by no means least, we wanted a Welsh language provision Bill included in the Queen’s Speech, to strengthen the requirements to provide public services in Welsh, particularly among private organisations contracted outside Wales to provide services into it. That matter was identified when the first Welsh language Bill went through the House—I was on the Standing Committee, as was my friend the right hon. Member for Torfaen. We identified the issue then, and it remains an issue. There is growing concern about the ability of certain large contractors to provide Welsh language services in the continuing rapid privatisation of public services. My hon. Friend the Member for Arfon has done a commendable job of focusing attention on that recently. 

If right hon. and hon. Members believe that our raft of measures is over-ambitious, I will be delighted, because it would certainly contrast starkly with the complete absence of ambition for Wales evidenced in the Queen’s Speech. 

11.1 am 

Paul Murphy:  It is always a great pleasure to serve under your skilled chairmanship, Mr Owen. I repeat my best wishes to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State in their new jobs, and to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West, I also convey my best wishes. I did not always agree with him, but he is a true Welshman. 

I want to deal with two issues. The first was put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd when he referred to the legislative relationship between ourselves and the National Assembly for Wales. The Wales Bill, which is to go before the House of Lords, will again consider the issue of reserved powers. One of the reasons for Labour’s insistence on that issue is that, were there to be such a power for Wales, it would avoid the fiascos that we have had in having to go to the Supreme Court to deal with controversial or disputed issues. We have heard about the Agricultural Wages Board, and only a matter of days ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the National Assembly. That and other legal processes have been unnecessarily costly, particularly to the people of Wales. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position when the Wales Bill goes to the House of Lords. 

The other issue is that sooner or later the Secretary of State will have to go to the National Assembly for Wales and give an address to Assembly Members on the legislative programme. I do not know whether his predecessor has done that, but there will come a time when the Secretary of State will have to. He will have to outline what the Government wish Parliament to do in their programme. 

With both those issues—the possibility of the reserved powers and the speech to the National Assembly—there is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to forge a new relationship. Between now and general election day, the temptation will be to campaign—of course it will; that is what politicians do when elections are around the corner, and there is nothing wrong with that—but I wish that the Government would take heed of what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and others have said: there is a distinction between political campaigning on the one hand and, on the other, jeopardising the relatively new nature of a devolved Administration in Wales. 

When potential inward investors from abroad are looking at Wales, they will not be aware of the political nuances and differences, whether or not a general election is around the corner. What they will see is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom attacking one of the UK’s devolved Administrations and therefore attacking another country within the UK. I am not saying for one second that the Government should not comment upon the Labour party’s record in Cardiff, but there is still a line to be drawn; otherwise, people will see such an attack as one on devolution itself and on Wales itself, which would be very dangerous. 

Having done the job that the Secretary of State does on a number of occasions, my view is that there is a mechanism within the Government—indeed, within Governments—to deal with disputes. There are the joint ministerial committees. They exist, or at least they should exist. They are set up by convention and indeed by law, so that the various Departments in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and London can deal with issues as they arise. I do not know whether the powers of the Agricultural Wages Board in Wales were ever discussed in a JMC, but they should have been, because it seems to me that that is the place where differences over such issues can be resolved. 

Mr Llwyd:  I fully agree with my right hon. Friend; we need to cut down on the needless references to the Supreme Court and on the disputes that he mentioned. I refer him to what the Silk commission said: it wanted an overarching committee, made up of all constituent parts, to decide on both the constitutional issue and the other issues. That would avoid this sort of public spat and the legal costs of references to the Supreme Court. 

Paul Murphy:  Indeed it would. However, it would not overcome basic differences between a Labour Administration and a Conservative Administration. The difference between the time when I was Secretary of State and now, with the current Secretary of State, is of course that there are different political parties in different places. That makes a difference; of course it does. 

Nevertheless, the Secretary of State will know, from his experience as Under-Secretary, that there is a constant flow of ministerial correspondence regarding issues affecting Wales that need to be addressed, and the mechanism is there. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has quite rightly referred to another possibility that Silk has introduced. And the other mechanism, of course, is the British-Irish Council, which was set up after the Good Friday agreement to deal with matters of mutual concern affecting the different Administrations in these islands. These mechanisms should be used before we start going down the legal and judicial routes; I make a plea for that to happen. 

The second issue is far removed from the first, and it is pubs. I am very interested in pubs; I have been going to them all my life, or for most of my life since it has been legal for me to do so. Pubs are very important, not only to go and have a pint in, but because they can sometimes lie at the heart of certainly our rural communities, but also our urban communities. Whether they are in the valleys or in the cities and towns of Wales, pubs perform an essential role in cementing relationships within a community. 

The Government said in the Gracious Speech that 

“Legislation will be introduced to provide for a new statutory code and an adjudicator to increase fairness for public house tenants.” 

Of course, that refers to the issue of so-called pubcos. They are vast companies controlling thousands of public houses in the UK, a very large number of which are in Wales. Over the years, pubcos have grown to be over-mighty barons. For example, their existence has resulted in such a squeeze being put upon the landlords of Welsh pubs that very often those landlords earn less than £10,000 a

year. Also, because pubs are tied to the beers of these very large companies, the cost of beer is enormous, and the pubs are further tied because of the rental of their premises. 

Frankly, this has been a little-known but nevertheless a considerably significant scandal among small businesses over the years. It has resulted, for example, in two Select Committee reports and three parliamentary debates, in which hon. Members across the political spectrum have said unanimously that the Select Committees’ basic recommendation should be agreed on. It has had the support of the GMB, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Local Government Association and many others, too. 

Mr Llwyd:  Again, I find myself in full agreement with my right hon. Friend. He will know, of course, that as far back as 1954, pub owners were exempted from giving rights to their tenants. Part II of the relevant Act said, “In any other business you would have protection, but as a pub tenant you do not have that protection.” That is scandalous. Bolstering what he says, the only shop we have in my home village is in the pub in the morning. 

Paul Murphy:  That proves the point that I was making about rural communities being dependent on public houses. 

My constituent, Mr Phil Jones of the Open Hearth in Pontypool, has been a considerable figure in trying to put pressure on the Government on behalf of Welsh landlords. He tells me that 27 pubs close every week in the United Kingdom—so a percentage of that number closes in Wales as well—not entirely because of the pub code; there are other reasons, too, including the austerity that we have faced over the years. Nevertheless, that figure is significant. 

I was pleased when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills agreed to implement a number of the Select Committee proposals and to put those into legislation. That is the right thing to do. For example, he agreed that there should be a statutory code of practice, where licensees tied to pub companies should be no worse off than if they were free of tie, and parallel rent assessments should be used and that an adjudicator should be appointed to arbitrate in disputes. Incidentally, that does not apply to lots of our smaller pub companies in Wales, such as Brains and others, because they have fewer than 500 pubs. We are focusing on the great, large pubcos, which are huge in the UK. I fear that the proposed legislation does not go far enough. 

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, in which such legislation is to be enshrined, will be considered in Committee after the recess. Our Welsh Ministers will have an opportunity to consider the Bill before it goes into Committee and attend Cabinet Committees and debate its pros and cons. Obviously, we welcome what has gone into the Government proposals, but my plea to Ministers is to go a little bit further. Licensees should have the choice between a tied and a market-rent-only option. That is important. Without that provision, I cannot see how an adjudicator can consider the issues and rule on fairness. 

Another proposal, which all of us will be aware of from various pubs in Wales, is to have an option of a guest ale in a tied pub. Tied pubs must have beer that is linked to the company, and it sometimes costs 50% more than any other beer in the pub. That could mean the breaking of a pub, so I hope that the Government will consider including those relatively modest amendments in the Bill. 

People might regard the issue as esoteric, but I do not think it is. The fabric of our social landscape in Wales depends a lot on our shops and our pubs, and our communities: they all go together, and when pubs and shops, and other facilities, which make the community a real, living place, are lost and disappear—my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd knows more about that than me, from the rural point of view—often the quality of life in the community can be seriously diminished. So, the opportunity is presented to the Government to sustain those communities in Wales, wherever we might live. 

That issue is a long way from reserve powers, but it is important to us all. We look forward to the Secretary of State and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary fighting on such issues in Cabinet Committees. I repeat my congratulations to them and look forward to working with them in the months ahead. 

11.15 am 

David T. C. Davies:  I seem to have pulled the graveyard slot, Mr Owen, and whether I can get my speech done in five minutes I do not know—[ Interruption. ] Ten minutes—easy then, piece of cake! 

First, I pay tribute to the previous Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West—a good colleague and a good friend of mine. I want to put it on the record that he did a superb job. I also pay tribute to my other colleagues and good friends—in all senses of the word—the new Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, who will similarly do an excellent job. I look forward to fighting the election campaign alongside them. That campaign will be underpinned by the economy, and the legislation announced in the Queen’s Speech demonstrates clearly that the economy is at the forefront of everything the coalition Government will do. 

The big picture is one we have debated a number of times in Grand Committee, and I remember having an exchange with the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I think some years ago, when we talked about the relative risks of the different approaches then being suggested. One was to reduce public spending as quickly as possible, trying to get the deficit down to increase confidence. The hon. Gentleman talked about the risk of creating a recession. I remember accepting from the place I am occupying now that it was a risk, just as there was risk involved in continuing to spend at the rate we were. The latter risk was that, at some point, when we went to the debt auctions, the people lending us money would suddenly turn around and say no. I look forward to hearing from his colleagues later, because the reality is that we have showed that our approach has worked. Confidence is still there, the economy is growing once again, there is no recession—no triple dip—and employment is growing. We have one of the best, fastest growing economies in the G7 area. 

Owen Smith:  I do recall the exchange, but does the hon. Gentleman care to comment on remarks that I understand were made this morning by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills? He conceded—despite all the success being presented to us by the hon. Member for Monmouth—that real wages in Britain have not risen. Those are the words of the Business Secretary. 

David T. C. Davies:  The hon. Gentleman is right. I would like to see a rise in wages for a lot of people, including all public sector workers. I did not come into office to hold down people’s wages, but wages have to grow at an affordable level. There is no point in paying people money that we simply do not have. He is an intelligent person, so he must sometimes worry about the incoherence of his party’s policies. He complains about every single spending cut while saying that a Labour Government could spend more money. 

The hon. Gentleman or his colleagues have complained previously about the levels at which we continue to borrow, and I agree, because we are still borrowing too much money, and we want to get the deficit down to zero over the next Parliament. It is not, however, a coherent policy to complain that the Government are borrowing too much and to complain about cuts in public spending while also suggesting that there is some way of magicking money out of thin air so as to reduce borrowing and increase spending at the same time. We have the big picture right, but I suppose my message to my Front-Bench colleagues is that I am sure they will want to look at how that picture affects Wales—the smaller picture, if I may put it that way. 

A number of issues concern all of us in Wales, one of which is the Severn bridge. I make no apology for mentioning it again, although it has been looked at on a number of occasions by the Welsh Affairs Committee. Shortly, I hope that the Wales Office will be working with other Departments on a plan for what will happen post-2017. The Treasury is looking to recoup a large sum of money—around £80 million, I believe—which it says was money that it ran up unexpectedly making repairs to the bridge. That is all true, but at the same time the Treasury benefited by a much greater amount—£130 million or so—from the VAT and changes to the industrial buildings tax, so the Treasury has done rather well out of it. It is very expensive to maintain the Severn bridge and post-2017 there will have to be some kind of toll to cover that, but the Select Committee calculated that it could be done for about one third of the current level. I do not know what the solution will be, but I hope that there will be a plan to put before us so that we can discuss it. 

Of course, those travelling on the Severn bridge often make use of the M4, and I want to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State something that concerns me: the apparent monopoly that BP has on the M4. On the legal side, the Office of Fair Trading has spoken out about certain oil companies having monopolies on motorways. I have done a little research on this, and there seem to be cheaper prices on the M4 in the areas with a greater mix of petrol companies. I cannot say that that is set in stone, but it seems to be the trend. I am concerned about the fact that virtually all the fuel stations from Wales to London are run by BP. 

Jonathan Evans:  My hon. Friend might like to know that, back in the 1990s, the Department of Trade and Industry demanded—for instance, in relation to the Magor services—that such services could not be run by the same company if it had the next service station, due to the competition concerns he has outlined. However, he is talking about brands, rather than the owners of the stations. Perhaps there should be a wider investigation of the cost of fuel on motorways generally; it seems to be 15% or 20% higher than the margin in many other places. 

David T. C. Davies:  Something that occurred to me—I should have thought about this years ago, having worked in haulage—is that it is much cheaper to deliver petrol to a service station on a motorway than to take it to a town. For years we have just accepted that we pay more on a motorway. Why? We should be paying less, because it is much easier to move the fuel in. A small issue, perhaps, but one that is important for all of us who travel. 

Members have already mentioned the Infrastructure Bill and energy. It was sad to hear that Tata was closing with the loss of several hundred jobs. One reason given was the high cost of energy, so I welcome the Government’s Infrastructure Bill, and I welcome the open-minded approach towards fracking for shale gas. Of course it has to be environmentally safe—we are all fully signed up to protecting the environment—but if we have the opportunity to derive large amounts of energy at a cheaper price, and in doing so create thousands of well-paid jobs, we should approach that with an open mind. I very much welcome the Government’s approach. 

I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Pontypridd mention the national health service. If the election is to be fought on the NHS and education, I could not be happier. I would be delighted to be able to compare the public services record of the coalition Government in England with what has been going on in Wales. 

At the air show the other day, I went past a stand run by a company called Care, whose slogan was, “Choose where you want to be treated by the NHS”. Reforms in England mean people can decide where and when they will have their operations and when they will be treated, whereas in Wales we see the old state-run system where some unaccountable person in the local authority says, “You’re not going to be treated for at least 26 weeks. We’re not even going to look at you. When we do, we’ll tell you where you will be treated.” 

In reality, people will not take any notice of politicians; they will take note of what people themselves are saying, and people in Wales are clearly saying, “We want to be treated in England.” People who live on the border with England, who have Welsh GPs and were told they had to be treated in Wales are taking action to make sure they can get their treatment in England. 

Owen Smith:  I do not know whether Care is a private company, but would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on whether the people of Wales and the people he represents would like the NHS to be privatised in Wales, as with, for example, cancer care in the midlands of England? 

David T. C. Davies:  What people want is to be treated free at the point of use. Most people do not mind whether they are treated by a private company or in the public sector, provided they do not have to pay. They want to be treated quickly, efficiently and well. That is what is happening in England. That is why people in England who could have their treatment in Wales are asking to be treated in England, and why people in Wales, all along the border, are demanding the right to be treated in England. 

May I say—I believe I have about 30 seconds left—how much I am looking forward to the general election? I look forward to fighting on the economic record of the coalition Government— 

11.25 am 

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).  

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.