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 (Minister for Civil Society)  

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

Owen, Albert (Ynys Môn) (Lab) 

Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab) 

Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) 

† Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) 

Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) 

† Williams, Hywel (Arfon) (PC) 

† Williams, Mr Mark (Ceredigion) (LD) 

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

Willott, Jenny (Cardiff Central) (LD) 

Fergus Reid, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Welsh Grand Committee 

Wednesday 16 July 2014  

(Afternoon)

[Dr William McCrea in the Chair] 

Legislative Programme

2 pm 

Question again proposed,  

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

The Chair:  I believe that the morning sitting was a pleasant one. I trust that that spirit will continue under my chairmanship. I call Mr Paul Flynn. 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab):  It is a great honour to speak, Dr McCrea. I think it is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, and I am sure it will be a wonderful experience. If the debate falters, perhaps you will treat us to a song in your lovely tenor voice, which would elevate things. 

The overwhelming impression from this morning is of the Cheshire cat in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”. The Cheshire cat disappeared; first of all, the face was in the sky, then his cheeks went, then his ears went and his eyes went, and all that was left was a smile. A similar fate is in store for the Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. We look at him now and he has got a seat in the Cabinet—wonderful—but where is the power? The power is disappearing; it is draining down the M4 to Wales and all that will be left, finally, is his starter beard, mocking us. 

The fuss about the beard! I am sure that the Beard Liberation Front was aghast at the idea that those pathetic whispers of hair can actually be designated as a beard. I do not know if there is a British standard definition of a beard, but the Secretary of State’s is more 7 o’clock shadow—“I have forgotten to shave this morning”—and not a beard in any reasonable sense of the word. 

I recall vividly the assault by Margaret Thatcher on beards, as part of her campaign—a very desirable campaign—for the feminisation of politics, which Labour has done rather more successfully than she did. Her idea of the feminisation of politics was not to have anyone in her Government, let alone her Cabinet, with a beard. Quite rightly it was said, “If we surrender and allow the disappearance of one male appendage, what will be asked for next?” That was resisted and we now have a proliferation of beards, certainly on Labour candidates, and I suppose we must congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire on being the first Tory Minister with one. 

The Queen’s Speech included a reference to the Government claim about what they will do to restore confidence in Members of Parliament. Nothing is more important than bringing back the trust that the people

used to have in politicians, but I am afraid that the Queen’s Speech includes nothing on that. The genuflection towards the foolish idea of recalling MPs will prove to be of no practical value. The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform looked at that in great detail and asked what would happen. Will the electors of the Vale of Glamorgan, possibly led by the Labour party in that splendid constituency, decide that they are not 100% happy with the MP? It does not require a great deal of effort to get 10% of them to sign a petition saying, “We would like someone else.” That could be done for all kinds of malicious or ignoble reasons. What is being suggested cannot work, because unrepresentative minorities would be able to unseat a parliamentarian and force a by-election. Something operating in that way would be abused and in disrepute quickly. 

The Government should do so many other things. The Prime Minister made a great speech before the general election. He said that the worst thing in politics, the next major scandal, will be lobbying. He knew—he had been a lobbyist, he had worked as a lobbyist—that the tap on the shoulder and the quiet word distorted politics. Politicians were being influenced to prostitute their powers to serve commercial interests. A terrible thing, but what have we got? On the last day of the Session last year we had a weak Bill, and it has now gone through the House. It did nothing to interfere with the excesses of corporate lobbyists, but it took a little kick at charities and trade unions. It was a completely futile Bill. 

Tomorrow in the House of Lords, Lord Blencathra will give an apology. I urge Members to look at this fascinating story. If anything proves that we in this Parliament are incapable of policing our own affairs it is the case of Lord Blencathra. In 2012 I made a complaint because Lord Blencathra was lobbying for the Cayman Islands, contrary to what a legislator should do. There was an inquiry that decided he was not guilty, although I provided five examples of lobbying to the House. He said that he was lobbying as Mr Maclean, a private individual, not as Lord Blencathra, and that he was not lobbying Parliament, he was lobbying the Government. That was accepted and seemed entirely reasonable. What he did not explain to the inquiry was something that I brought to the attention of the House of Lords a few weeks ago. He had signed a contract that he had unfortunately forgotten to mention to the first investigation. That contract said that he would lobby in exchange for £12,000 a month. So there was a new investigation. 

That new investigation looked at it and said it was very strange that Lord Blencathra had forgotten to mention that contract, which was leaked to the investigation. He said that he had completely forgotten the contract, that he had signed it but that when he did so he had no intention of doing any lobbying. The House of Lords said that was an entirely reasonable explanation: someone signs a contract for £12,000 to lobby for the Cayman Islands but does not intend to lobby. 

The examples of Lord Blencathra’s lobbying were disregarded, as was the fact that he did not mention it at the first inquiry. The Lords have said that he is a good chap and one of their chums, so he should not be suspended from the House for a most egregious breach of the Commons rules that legislators should not be

paid lobbyists. All that is expected of him is that tomorrow he will get away with an apology to the House and things will carry on as normal. 

We must take this seriously and say that the Commons is disgracing itself again. We are proving that we are not capable of disciplining Members for the most blatant breaches of our own rules. We are not here as lobbyists and paid advocates for private firms or groups such as the Cayman Islands. 

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD):  The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful contribution. At the beginning he said that the recall Bill is unnecessary and unworkable, and he will know that there is an alternative recall Bill being promoted by Back Benchers. He went on to say that we are not capable of enforcement against our own Members who might have breached parliamentary rules. Would the recall Bill not be a way to bring those people to account, certainly in the lower Chamber? 

Paul Flynn:  It has a superficial attraction. When mentioned in the tabloids and described in a few sentences, it seems okay. The public can say that they do not like a Member of Parliament and can get rid of him or her. However, go into the practical details, as the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party did, and it collapses. It will not happen in practical terms. I believe it will turn out that way. 

It is idealistic and a fine idea. We would all like to have seen some method of getting rid of those MPs—and we have known them over the years—who have behaved abominably. At the moment, we have a system that is probably better than recall, in that in the most recent examples in Rotherham and so on, a Member was expelled for 12 months, which meant he could not carry on. There was another example involving the former Member for Newark. Those people resigned because they could not carry on. They were so disgraced by the evidence that they resigned. That is a better precaution, with real practical advantages, than a recall Bill that is just a piece of window dressing to look good. 

We must return to the fact that we are seen in low esteem by the public, and this is not the way to do things. What will happen tomorrow with Lord Blencathra is a scandal; someone should not be allowed to breach the rules in that blatant way and get away with it. Listening to what the Secretary of State said this morning about pensions—that we must give people choice and a chance to go outside the system—I recalled hearing identical words in the 1980s. That is what Tony Newton told us in 1988 or 1989. Some visitors, who have come back to Parliament today from the United States, were here one day when I had a question to Mrs Thatcher about personal pensions back in 1989. She said: “The hon. Gentleman is a socialist. He’s against choice and so he would be against personal pensions.” He was not against choice; he was against people being ripped off by the commercial pension industry. Private and personal pensions were sold and people were told that they mustn’t be a SERP. A SERP was advertised as an oleaginous blob that was greasy and dreadful. Who would want to be a SERP when someone working in the mines, teaching or nursing could get a £5,000 gift from Government to abandon their pension and have a wonderful private pension instead? 

The private pension was a gamble. It was based on what would happen in the stock market in 10, 20 or 40 years’ time. We do not even know what will happen in 14 weeks’ time. That great con was visited on the British people, and 6 million of them were mis-sold pensions. Around £11 billion was paid out in compensation, and there was very little difference from what is being suggested now—the collective pension scheme used in Holland. We are adopting the Dutch scheme. There are many things we could adopt from Holland but, at the moment, the Netherlanders are becoming disillusioned with their scheme. They have 400 schemes, and 60 of them have not paid any increase in pensions for about six years. Some are reducing the amounts they pay, and they are in trouble in many ways. Their disillusionment with the scheme is based on the gamble of the stock market. 

Roger Williams:  The hon. Gentleman is talking about a subject I have a great interest in. A number of my constituents are self-employed and do not have access to a public sector or occupational pension. The proposals in the Queen’s Speech will ensure that the pensions they are able to put together serve their interests better. 

Paul Flynn:  That is a point made strongly. It is hard to believe, but I led for the Labour Opposition on pensions in 1989. I can remember those arguments being put forcefully then, but as many of those people were cheated out of their pensions as anyone else. This is an illusion. We have a marvellous pension scheme, which was started by a member of the hon. Gentleman’s party and strengthened in the 1940s by another member of his party; it is called the national insurance scheme. I made an inquiry this week about the administration charges of the national insurance scheme. We know that private pensions charge up to 25% in administration, commissions and all the rest, but the answer I had from a member of his party was, “Nil.” The actual costs are absorbed, but they were about 2% and have gone down to half what they were 12 years ago. 

We have a superbly efficient system in which everyone can be involved. If we are serious about improving pensions, we need to strengthen the national insurance scheme. It is popular in Holland, where people are not told to join the collective scheme. They say, “We want something like what they have in the United Kingdom.” There is a lot one could go into about this scheme, but one other part of it is that it threatens to cheat young people. That seems to be a theme with the current Government, possibly because young people tend not to vote. Russell Brand is advising people not to vote, and he has 7 million followers on Twitter—rather more than most of us have—so he is greatly influential. The Government are cutting young people’s benefits and giving extra benefits to rich pensioners such as many of us here; it is wholly unjust. The great weakness in the collective pensions scheme is that although it might be beneficial in the short term to those of pension age, it will cheat people who are not of pension age. It is a poor deal, and experts in the pension industry are highly critical of it. 

I want to say a word or two about the great threat to jobs in Wales—in particular, in Newport. The Government are under the delusion that all that is public is bad and inefficient and all that is private is good and wonderful,

but just look at the experience of Newport, where in 2011 the private firm Steria was given a contract for £111 million, which has now been abandoned. It spent £56 million, but produced nothing of value. The Government decided to forget about it because it was producing no value and there are better schemes elsewhere. But what did they do for the next stage? They created a new scheme. Whom did they ask to run it? Steria. It is no wonder that my constituents are saying with anger and venom that Steria is rewarded for failure while they are punished for success. Since shared services began in Newport in 2006, it has saved £120 million to the national Exchequer. It is a very efficient system. Jobs that are being done in 143 prisons are located in one spot, and they are done efficiently and cost-effectively. 

How can anybody justify the current proposal? The Government should learn from their other public sector contracts. G4S, which provided staff for the Olympics, is an unforgettable example. It was short of staff by 4,700, and we had to call on the Army to make up for its inefficiency. Serco was found to be charging taxpayers too much for monitoring criminals in a contract dating back to 2005. It agreed to repay £68 million that it had overcharged the country. Capita won a £50 million contract to run individual learning accounts, which collapsed in 2001 amid mounting allegations of fraud among learning providers, and was £93 million over budget. The Ministry of Justice’s handling of the £42 million contract for court interpreters caused chaos. There were 6,000 complaints and 600 trials had to be stopped, which wasted time for the lawyers and everyone else involved. That hopelessly ineffective contract was won by Capita. We all know about Atos; there is not a Member here who has not had to face the heart-breaking problems it has created. People with serious—sometimes terminal—illnesses have been told by Atos that there is nothing wrong with them, so they should get up from their beds and get back to work. The figures are astonishing. 

Owen Smith:  My hon. Friend has so far failed to mention in his excellent speech the mess that Capita made of the personal independence payment, which we are all dealing with. Does he share my concern that, despite the reassurances we have had about outsourcing from the MOJ—although, as he highlighted, the Cabinet Office makes many of those decisions—companies such as Steria are being given preferred status, although they state in their business plans that their preferred option for saving money is to outsource jobs? 

Paul Flynn:  That is entirely the point. The Government are being gullible if they believe that the job will not be outsourced. The Atos figures were 600,000 appeals and four out of 10 cases were allowed. The appeal decided that Atos was wrong. If you translate that into the misery, anxiety and lack of money that it imposed on families, it is an enormous mountain of blame that is the Government’s fault. We should ask them to explain why on earth they still believe that privatisation is right. In the case of Steria there clearly is a preference. It already has lots of workers in India. It has a great preference for outsourcing. We cannot over-emphasise the effect on Wales, particularly on Newport, where we saw a collapse in manufacturing jobs. 

Other Governments have brought in good stable jobs in statistics and elsewhere—indeed, in the passport office—that were beneficial. We have to defend them. The decision on Steria will be taken not by the MOJ but by the Cabinet Office. The Government have a man at the Cabinet Office who is fanatical about outsourcing and saving money, regardless of the effect it would have on the work force. 

Owen Smith:  Would my hon. Friend repeat what I think I heard him say this morning and endorse my view that, after last week’s worrying report about the suggestion by the Office for National Statistics that jobs ought to be repatriated from Wales to London, we would like to hear an assurance from the Minister that that will not happen under his watch? 

Paul Flynn:  We certainly want that. We are always under attack from London. I recall a journalist coming here from America, some years ago, and going to see a man called Terry Ryan who was a Canadian entrepreneur in Wales. She said to him, “How are things in Wales? What’s it like for footloose industry?” She asked him whether it was true that people’s neighbours would burn their houses down if they did not speak Welsh, whether there was terrible pollution from the coal pits and the steelworks, and whether social lives were deprived because cinemas and pubs are shut on a Sunday. Terry Ryan said to her, “Where do you get this rubbish from? Is this what they think about Wales in America?” She said, “No. This is what they told me in London yesterday.” The nonsensical bias is still there. 

The ONS has been a brilliant success and now there is a story erupting again, from a metropolitan view, which says that people in Newport, living out in the sticks, cannot really handle things like that and the jobs have to go back to London. We want a clear statement from the Ministers in the Wales Office to say that they will be defending those jobs and defending the fact that the service we have provided in the ONS and in the passport office and throughout the shared services jobs has been brilliant, and they must lead us forward. 

Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab):  I very much agree my hon. Friend. I, too, believe that it would be great to have a clear statement from the new Secretary of State for Wales about the security of those jobs, especially in light of the fact that the MOJ gives assurances about Steria not offshoring, but we have seen what happened with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs jobs. They give assurances for those jobs, but after the six months is up the redundancy notices go out. Does he agree with that point? 

Paul Flynn:  Absolutely. We must rely on our history and what happened there and take assurances with a large pinch of salt. We want the Wales Office, in its powerful position, and the Welsh Assembly to be 100% behind us. Newport—Wales—is under attack as far as jobs are concerned and that is being done on an ideological basis by the Conservative party. I urge the Government to abandon that foolish idea, when all the evidence is that privatisation is often bad for jobs and there are great strengths in the public service. There are Members of the Government party who have said, “We have gone

down this road and we now have the same problems in the private sector as we attacked in the public sector.” There is no clear line. There is a history of failure, duplicity and treachery from the privatisers and they have been irresponsible in the way they have treated their staff. 

My final point is on the passport office. There is still a denial that when 150 workers left the Newport passport office a couple of years ago it had any effect on what happened since. We know what has happened since. We have a system in chaos, with huge demand for services that cannot be met and where, in May, £1 million was paid out in overtime alone. There will be £5 million extra paid this year. They have not counted the number of people who have made claims for cancelled holidays or having to travel to passport offices in far-flung corners of the country, but there will be huge claims coming in. 

Closing Newport passport office was meant to save £2.6 million. At least three times that amount has been wasted in overtime costs, chaos in the services, demoralisation, the fact that the services become less efficient if people are working overtime every weekend, and in the compensation claims to come in. When will the Government admit that they cut the passport service down to an emaciated state that could not stand any new demands made on it? 

Jessica Morden:  My hon. Friend is making incredibly important points. Does he agree that one of the other things on the new Secretary of State’s “to do” list is to restore the full processing function that we had at the Newport passport office? That is working temporarily at the moment, with staff from other departments, but we could do with those permanent jobs back in Newport. 

Paul Flynn:  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The future of the passport service must be looked at and part of that is expanding staff. Those areas that suffered grievously from the loss of staff should have the first call and Newport was the worst of the lot. When the passport service is rebuilt and strengthened so that it can cope with future emergencies, Newport must be at the top of the list. 

2.27 pm 

Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD):  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth described the 10 minutes preceding lunch as the graveyard period of the Welsh Grand Committee, but I do not know what that makes this period. It is good to be here and I endorse all the congratulations to the new Secretary of State, who I know well and with whom I share a border: Ceredigion and Preseli Pembrokeshire. I know the esteem in which he is held by his constituents, and I welcome him and my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan to their jobs. I hope that they will keep the tradition the Welsh Grand. 

The former Secretary of State confided in me once that he rather liked Welsh Grands. There was a time when we did not have Welsh Grands very often, to such an extent that the hon. Member for Newport West, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and myself resurrected—if it had ever gone—the Welsh parliamentary committee to ensure that the forum, in some guise,

continued. The former Secretary of State believed in Welsh Grands. I hope that we can encourage the new Secretary of State to do likewise. Whatever the attendance of those occasions, they are an important forum. 

Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con):  I apologise to my hon. Friend that I missed the beginning of his speech, but I came in at the right moment because I attended that meeting of the Welsh parliamentary committee, as he will recall. I do not recall a meeting being called since that occasion. 

Mr Williams:  My hon. Friend is right and I should thank him for nominating me for office in that great organisation, but I think it served its purpose. The fear and threat of a Welsh parliamentary committee meeting ensured that Welsh Grands happen. 

I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on the Queen’s Speech. Most of my remarks will be restricted to the issues surrounding my ill-fated attempt to change the law through the Child Maltreatment Bill. I was lucky enough to be drawn 13th in the ballot for private Members’ Bills during the last session. We never had a Second Reading debate of the Child Maltreatment Bill because my friends in the Conservative party had a preoccupation with the European Union (Referendum) Bill. I do not say that in a provocative sense, but that is what their preoccupation meant. However, my Bill galvanised many of the important issues which are found in the Serious Crime Bill. On the back of that campaign, there was much lobbying of the Government by organisations such as Action for Children. That has yielded in part something that we are trying to achieve. 

It is now over five years since Action for Children launched a dedicated campaign to raise awareness of and to tackle child neglect. It knows first hand from its organisation across the country, including our country, that too many children are experiencing chronic neglect. Its figures suggest that up to one in 10 children across the UK suffers from neglect. That is equivalent to at least one child in every classroom. As a teacher in my previous life, I find that deeply worrying, but it is not exactly surprising. When I was a teacher in rural Powys, I came across the occasional case where evident neglect was clear. Thankfully, in those cases, other interventions were put in place to support those families and they never reached the threshold that the Government are looking at in clause 62 of the Serious Crime Bill. 

I should like to place on record my gratitude to Members from across the House, some of whom are here today, who were co-sponsors of the Bill. My gratitude goes in particular to the late Paul Goggins on the Labour side. He came with me to meetings at the Ministry of Justice along with Baroness Butler-Sloss, who has been in the news a lot recently. Paul Goggins was an ardent proponent of the cause and I think he would be pleased that, in part, we are addressing the concerns that he raised. 

The effect of the emotional abuse of children has been shown to be lifelong and profound. Neglected adolescents are estimated to be at least 25% more likely to experience problems such as delinquency and teenage pregnancy, low academic achievement and drug use. They are also more likely than their peers to develop mental health problems and are vastly over-represented in the criminal justice system. In the vast majority of

cases, the solution is to work with the family to help parents create a safe and happy home where children can thrive. Sadly, however, there is a distinct minority of cases where child neglect cannot be reversed through such interventions. Some cases require the criminal law to punish cruelty to children. Yet the legislation that governs this—section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—is not fit for purpose. It uses antiquated language—verbiage, as it was described in the other place yesterday by my noble Friend, Lord Elystan-Morgan—that dates back to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1868. It cannot be right that our criminal definition of child neglect remains rooted in laws that were passed during the reign of Queen Victoria. 

The differences between criminal and civil law present real difficulties for the police and social workers who need to work together effectively in child neglect cases. In the middle of it all are vulnerable children across Wales and across England, too, who deserve better and a much more common-sense approach to their protection. As one police officer put it: neglect can only be acted upon when it leads to physical harm. There are instances when police officers go into homes and can see evident neglect of children but are unable to take any action because there is no evidence of physical harm. 

My attempt to reform the law—now the Government’s clause 62 of the Serious Crime Bill—seeks to change the law so that parents or carers who make a deliberate decision to act or not to act, or where they simply do not care will be open to prosecution. It is not an attempt to criminalise vulnerable parents or carers, including those who do not have the capacity to change their behaviour; nor does it aim to prosecute parents who have difficulty providing for their children physically or financially. It is not about bad parenting—for those of us who are parents that phrase is a scary one, because we are human and we all make mistakes—or about the Government prescribing how parents should raise their children. It is about abuse. 

Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC):  I am afraid that I am so old that, as a very young social worker, I applied provisions of the legislation that the hon. Gentleman is referring to, including the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, some of which was never enacted and was eventually superseded by other legislation. Popular debate on this matter is not helped by the hysteria demonstrated by parts of the popular press. Some serious issues need to be addressed, and it does not help to have headlines about punishing parents for being not so nice to their children. 

Mr Williams:  The hon. Gentleman is right. My office rang me in great excitement to tell me that I had been mentioned in The Sun and the Daily Mail and on Radio 5 in a rather disparaging sense and in exactly that context—those alarmist ways in which people try to whip up a bit of opposition to what is an eminently sensible proposal. It is a sensible proposal that, I might add, has many international precedents. It is nothing new that I proposed and that the Government are now seeking to enact. 

We need to be mindful of the kind of instances we are talking about. No member of the Committee would have any concern about prosecuting an individual who persistently abused their partner or spouse by locking them up in the evenings, by forcing them to defecate in their bedroom or to sleep on a bed riddled with maggots or by refusing to allow them to see their friends or wider family. That kind of behaviour is currently considered criminal if towards a spouse, but the same behaviour is not considered criminal if towards children. To protect people in Wales, we need a common definition of neglect across our legal system that is understood by all agencies and includes emotional abuse of children. In that context, I very much welcome the Government’s Serious Crime Bill. 

Roger Williams:  My hon. Friend will have helped to bring an important element of legislation into the law of the land. Unfortunately, it will not be enacted through a private Member’s Bill with his name on it, but would he object if we called it Mark’s law? 

Mr Williams:  That is not a primed question from my hon. Friend, but it is a kind thought. I am a modest and humble person. What I want to see is effective legislation. There is a debate to be had about the definition—it was debated in the House of Lords yesterday by eminent experts in the field, including Lady Butler-Sloss, Lord Elystan-Morgan, Lady Walmsley and many others. I want to see this important legislation enacted. More importantly, anyone who talks to abuse officers or social workers in the field—indeed, any of us who have worked with young children and have suspected neglect—will know that the law needs to be brought in. Those disparate elements of the media to which the hon. Member for Arfon alluded need to be ignored, and we need to proceed with the legislation. 

I will end there on the Serious Crime Bill, but I want to mention a couple of other measures that are of benefit to Wales and my constituents. First is the measure that will be debated shortly in the Chamber, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. There are 600 family farms across the Ceredigion constituency. I always argue with the hon. Member for Aberconwy about the statistics, but I would say that I have more small businesses per head of population in Ceredigion than he does in Aberconwy. Either way, in both our constituencies, small businesses are essential to our economy. 

The Government are taking steps not just to protect but to advance their interests through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014. Important measures were mentioned by the Secretary of State this morning, such as faster company registration, improvements to public sector pay, measures to support business cash flow, such as action on late payment terms for smaller suppliers, and increased scrutiny of unnecessary red tape and regulation. 

I am particularly pleased to see in the Bill remedial proposals for prompt and late payments. That resonates with many businesses in my constituency, particularly regarding some of the larger buyers of their services. What might seem like a small amount of money to a large company can, to others, be the difference between staying afloat and going under. 

The hon. Member for Aberconwy is not here; I believe that he will be downstairs later. I am a member of his all-party group. He has been working hard to tackle the mis-selling of interest rate swap products, which remains a big issue for many of us. I have no doubt that asset-rich businesses in my constituency were targeted by the banks. Some of those issues are being dealt with under the voluntary redress scheme, but that is inadequate; it is taking a long time and the redress is inadequate in many cases. 

I am particularly concerned about the extent of the Financial Conduct Authority’s review and the fact that it does not include one of those hidden swaps: tailored business loans. A number of businesses affected by that are integral to the Ceredigion economy. The loss of eight or nine employees’ jobs in a small town such as Aberystwyth, let alone smaller towns, has a big impact if a business has to fold. I encourage the Under-Secretary to have a close dialogue with the hon. Member for Aberconwy, so that work continues to try to navigate a way to a solution for those businesses. 

Reference was made to the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment to raise the personal tax allowance. All converts to that cause are gratefully received by our party. That is significant. When we talk about progressive taxation, that policy answers, in part at least, that point. 

The policy of tax-free child care, announced in the Queen’s Speech, will offer working families up to £2,000 a year for each child to ease the cost of child care, as part of a scheme to be rolled out in the autumn of 2015. However, as the hon. Member for Arfon said in the Second Reading debate of the Childcare Payments Bill on Monday and again earlier today, there is particular concern about the capacity to deliver that policy in rural areas and the extent to which it will encourage providers of the service. That is important. 

I want to touch on just a couple of other things. We have talked about this on several occasions. I think that we all, wherever we sit in the House, need to be mindful of the language we use. I have no difficulty in criticising Assembly Government policy—that is the nature of our business between political parties—but as a former public servant and a former teacher in Welsh education, I sometimes take exception to the tone of the language used. That is important. 

When we talk to nurses and doctors in our hospitals and hard-working practitioners in classrooms—I declare an interest; I am still a member of the NASUWT and proud to be so—we must be careful and sensitive to those people. That is easy to say. I have no difficulty in challenging the Hywel Dda board and some of the decisions it is taking in my area—retrograde steps—and in criticising Mr Drakeford or the Education Ministry in Cardiff, but I implore people to be careful with the language we use. 

It is easy to look at bald statistics; I am thinking particularly about education and the results from the programme for international student assessment. No one is in the business of knocking a profession on the basis of the PISA results. We have to look at the circumstances behind those statistics. 

The Secretary of State is not here; I know that he is a busy man. I do not know whether he is coming back later, and this is not a criticism in any way. I implore him, through the Under-Secretary, to remember the

constituency he represents—I know he represents it well—and the challenges of rurality. We often feel, in the peripheral areas, that we are being short-changed or that there is a lack of understanding of the challenge of rurality. 

We have a lot of debate about the rail service in south Wales, and we have a growing amount of discussion about electrification in north Wales. We do not hear much about the Heart of Wales line, nor do we hear much about Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury or about reopening railway lines between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen, but those are important issues for the people in our area. 

We talk about broadband and the targets for, I think, 95% coverage by 2016. Like the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, I would hazard a guess that much of the 5% left out will be businesses and households in west Wales, and that needs to be considered. 

We need to remember that the effects of welfare reform are different in rural areas. I do not like to disappoint my hon. Friends, but I could not support the bedroom tax because it would never work in a rural area such as Ceredigion because, even if the Government’s objective could be accepted, the supply of housing is not there to achieve it. 

I have mentioned child care. We touched on the importance of the tourism sector earlier. Anything that the Under-Secretary can do—such as coming to our all-party group and campaigning with us in particular on VAT reductions for hospitality and visitor attractions—would be welcome. There is work to be done on the Labour side as well. Labour Members do not seem particularly enthusiastic about that proposal—in our debates there have been negative responses from them—so I say in a friendly way to the hon. Member for Llanelli that her side need to look at that. 

To reduce VAT for the tourism sector, as every country in Europe has done apart from us and Denmark—it is as stark as that—could have a huge impact in attracting people to our country to spend money, in improving the low wages that people are paid in the sector and in encouraging investment in the sector as a whole. We have a lot of work to do. The comparison was made between the number of jobs in the mining industry and the tourism sector and the potential is vast. The British Hospitality Association has done much work on that, and the Treasury has done modelling that shows that in the first year of a VAT reduction the Treasury will take a hit, but there is the potential for massive gains in the years after that. 

As the hon. Member for Newport East said, the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State have a large “to do” list, which is quite large thanks to today’s debate, but I wish them well in their new posts. I know that they will rise to the many challenges that I have talked about. 

2.47 pm 

Jonathan Evans:  I should declare an interest because I intend to speak about that part of the Queen’s Speech that outlined the Government’s proposals on freeing up pension pots, which I raised in interventions this morning. I hesitate to speak on that issue because of my direct financial interests, but it is preferable to share my perspective with the Committee because I may be able to bring

something that other Members have not thought of. I am chairman of a very large life insurance company in the United Kingdom and have been so for the past nine years. 

I support the concept of giving people who are approaching retirement much greater freedom with the pots of money they have built up, but as I indicated earlier, we should understand the pensions landscape that we are dealing with. The reality is that too few people are saving for their retirement. Since 2010, we have seen proposals taken forward—originally advanced by the Labour party when it was in office—on stakeholder pensions. Consensus broke out to a great extent this morning and I want to build on that this afternoon. 

In terms of stakeholder pensions, the Government, and the two major political parties, are endeavouring to drive up the proportion of people who save for their retirement. However, the sums of money that people are putting aside for their retirement are woefully low. Many people do not appreciate quite how difficult a retirement they are likely to have. Since the announcement was made by the Chancellor we have found that in relation to freeing up those private pension pots. The company I am associated with is engaged in the management of those pots. 

The first point is the size of those pots. As I said in an intervention, the vast majority of pots are between £20,000 and £30,000. At today’s values that will produce about an additional £1,000 a year in retirement. Many people who save for their retirement do not understand that. 

Secondly, when the Chancellor referred to the new freedoms, he spoke of the very poor annuity returns that people now receive on pension savings. What he said is very true. In recent years annuity returns have probably been less than half—in the worst cases, down to a third—of what they might have been five to eight years ago. The Government must accept part of the responsibility. The amount given in annuities reflects the position of interest rates. It is also affected by Government policy on quantitative easing. 

The massive programme of quantitative easing has swept huge value from pensions in this country. It is important that people recognise, understand and are honest about that. When I heard the Chancellor announce these freedoms during the Queen’s Speech debate it was as though people might be able to get a better deal as a result, without acknowledgment that a lot of the cost of the tough steps taken—which I have supported—on quantitative easing and trying to keep interest rates down, has fallen on pensioners, particularly those in the private sector. 

Hywel Williams:  It is all too easy to talk in broad terms about the actions that the Government have taken on macro-economic policies. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has met people, as I have, who have done the right thing throughout their life and saved hard when it has been difficult, and now find themselves with tiny incomes from the pots that they have gathered. I met someone about six months ago who had worked hard all their life and was bewildered by what had happened to them even though they had done the right thing. 

Jonathan Evans:  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One reason that the Chancellor was right to look at this area is that returns at present are inadequate. So, what can one do? The first thing is to say, yes, we allow people more freedom with their pots. I served as an MP between 1992 and 1997, when we were here together, Dr McCrea. Since I returned in 2010, people have drawn to my attention the frustration that they feel. Here is a pot of money for their retirement that they are forced to use to buy an annuity at punitively low levels. I can understand that frustration. 

The Chancellor is on the right lines in trying to effect ways in which people in that situation can be helped and given more freedom, but we must also be cautious about the implications of that. The hon. Member for Pontypridd quoted a report in this regard. I want to be a little more measured. He will have gathered—and I hope accepts—from my remarks that there are some aspects of what is proposed that we need to be cautious about. The first is, as I said this morning, that the Red Book asserts that the Government anticipate receiving something of the order of £8 billion from the change. If that is so, depending on the rate of tax on the sums that are immediately realised, we are talking about the release of at least £40 billion of value. That is an indication that we are looking at significant movements. 

The all-party group on insurance and financial services, which I chair, recently heard from Nigel Wilson, the chief executive of Legal and General. His company and five other companies recently announced as part of the Government’s insurance growth action plan, which was launched in December, that they will invest £25 billion in infrastructure in the UK over the next year. That is a huge investment, and the Government are very pleased with it; in fact, they blew the trumpet about it in December. However, Mr Wilson told us that the reason why they were going for that infrastructure spending was that the infrastructure income that would result would match the long-term liabilities of the annuities that the company was considering writing. Therefore, if we see a marked change in relation to annuities, Nigel Wilson indicated that we might see the annuity market fall to about a quarter of what it is today. That would clearly have a knock-on effect on the capacity for public infrastructure spending. 

That is not a reason not to grant the freedoms that we are discussing, but it is a reason to be cautious, to examine and to analyse what has been proposed. In fairness to the hon. Member for Pontypridd, he said that at one point in his remarks. However, I lost him a bit when he declared from the report that he had produced that the proposal was in some way an effort to disadvantage pensions. I absolutely believe that the Chancellor has looked at the current poor returns and is trying to do something to help people. 

Owen Smith:  The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech about a complicated but hugely important area. I said in my remarks that we agree that reform of annuities is necessary, because the market was clearly not working as well as it might have been. I quoted Chris Daykin, who was the Government Actuary for 20 years from 1997 to 2007, so he served under two successive Governments. His view was that because of the £8 billion that could be written into future receipts for the Exchequer, part of the motivation for the

Government might be to have a greater volume of receipts. His concern was that the long-term cost to the Exchequer could be greater because the state would have to support individuals who might unwisely spend money that might otherwise have been tied up in an annuity, providing an annual income, and who might be left short as they live longer. I also think that the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the balancing act between annuities and potential infrastructure investments. 

Jonathan Evans:  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he aspires to the role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken on. Let me offer him this advice, having had a brief period of time in ministerial office myself: never rely on one actuary’s viewpoint. In the mid-1990s I had the opportunity of serving in the then Department of Trade and Industry when we dealt with the Lloyd’s reconstruction programme. We got separate opinions from six actuary firms before we were in a position to sign that off. 

Another point of concern is this. We look at pension pots within what are called defined contribution schemes, where people put sums of money aside for their retirement. Of course, many people are in defined benefit schemes, which have been less and less available in recent times. As the Chancellor has said, some who represent people in defined benefit schemes say that surely they should be given the same freedoms as those in defined contribution schemes. If I have been saving in a defined benefit scheme, why is nobody allowing me to take out large capital sums? 

One of the reasons for that is that there are relatively few defined benefit schemes, but the benefits received are significant. We in Parliament all have the advantage of such a scheme. It is certainly arguable that if we applied the same freedoms we might undermine the whole financial viability of a lot of these DB schemes. But there has to be a better argument than saying that people who are in defined benefit schemes cannot have those freedoms because they would undermine the financial viability. More thought needs to be given as to what an appropriate answer is in that area. 

Another area that concerns me is one that I raised earlier today. The vast majority of people who are in these schemes and affected by the Chancellor’s announcement do not have more than around £30,000. I have the utmost admiration for the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb). He is widely admired in the House as an expert, but it was unfortunate—perhaps I should just say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion that it may have been a slip of the tongue—when he said he was completely comfortable with people blowing their pots on Lamborghinis. It gave the impression that these pots could finance a purchase along those lines when they demonstrably could not. 

Certainly there will be people who have put aside significant sums of money and the freedoms will be of great advantage to them. If they are not already doing so, many of them will be putting their money in self-invested personal pension schemes. All of those people can easily get access to all the financial advice that they would need to ensure that they do not take a step that is to their disadvantage. There are a couple of sectors of people who are not in a position to do that. They are the

people who have those smaller pots. They are also the people who bought pension products in the early part of the 1980s, just at the time when a number of insurance companies in the UK believed that interests rates would always be 10% to 15% or more and always believed that there would be one-way traffic in relation to the overall volume of their business and so gave a whole range of guarantees. 

Now, let me make it clear: everybody who has been given a guarantee has that guarantee covered by our regulators in this country. They may have been given the pension promise that the amount of money they would get for their pension pot was based, let us say, on actuarial value. That is not the interest rate today, but may have been the interest rate back in the early 2000s. There is a whole range of people—it is sometimes argued, almost a third of the market—who have guarantees of this nature. It is important that those people understand that if they cash in their money they lose their guarantees. They could take steps that are decidedly to their disadvantage. Similarly, there could be people who decide to cash in the value of these pensions and end up paying tax where otherwise they would not have paid tax. 

That problem is recognised by the Chancellor because he said in the Queen’s Speech debate that he would put £20 million aside to ensure that proper advice is given. He used the term “advice” but I think what he meant to say was guidance. The lawyers will say that there is all the difference in the world between guidance and advice. You are not financially liable for guidance but you are for advice. I see, Dr McCrea, that you understand that point very well. The insurance industry generally recognises that it is fairly likely that it will have to pick up the tab for ensuring that people have the appropriate—whatever we call it—guidance or advice. 

At present the Government are consulting on that issue but they are up against a tight time scale. The Queen’s Speech makes it clear that these freedoms will be available from next April. We are now barely a week away from the summer recess. We are coming to the end of the consultation period, it is true, but there is not a lot of time to finalise how that advice/guidance mechanism is to be put in place. I caution that it is essential to recognise that point. I am not making a new point; the Chancellor, in his Budget statement, made it clear that it is understood. 

Many people in the industry would say that although we are a short time on from the Queen’s Speech debate, few people are much wiser about the way in which the guidance will be provided. Will it be provided by the Money Advice Service, for example? Many people on the Financial Services Consumer Panel have said that it would be completely inappropriate for anybody selling a financial product also to provide the advice. I know, from my knowledge of people in the financial services world, that everybody recognises that; they want the advice that the Government say must be available to be impartial and not to come from anybody who is involved in selling financial services. 

Owen Smith:  In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, does he share my concern about the way that many small businesses in our constituencies and elsewhere were sold hedging products against interest rate rises? Often, loans were made contingent on the borrowers taking out hedging products from the very people who were providing loans and advice. 

Jonathan Evans:  Yes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, who has been leading on that issue. Nobody would try to justify that practice. In the course of my business dealings, I have spent days trying to understand some of the complex hedging products that are available in some markets. The concept that something of that complexity could be sold to somebody running a small business as a continuation of an arrangement with a bank is absolutely out of order. I am sorry that the banks were slow not only in acknowledging that, but in making the payouts. I have constituents who are still waiting for payouts from the banks, and I have found it better to get the British Bankers Association to kick the banks to respond, because the banks themselves are sluggish. 

That issue pertains to the failure of the banking sector, but I am discussing how we ensure that advice is given to people who have small pots so that they do not take steps that remove valuable guarantees or disadvantage them in tax terms. I am of the view that the £8 billion figure reflects some of the value that may be drawn from people who are at the higher level of the income scale choosing to release funds. In one way or another, those people will pay tax in any event. However, the people who are in the £20,000 to £30,000 pension pot bracket will not, in many circumstances, pay tax at all. It would be wholly wrong if, in intending to give people a better return, we introduced something that gave them a worse return. I do not equate the proposal with some of the remarks that were made earlier about the mis-selling of products. The industry is not trying to sell anything here. Ultimately, we are all trying to get a better return for people who are in that situation. 

I hope those concerns do not lead anybody in the Committee to feel that I am in any way negative about the freedoms that the Chancellor announced in the Queen’s Speech debate. I think they are excellent moves, but they come with certain caveats. We must ensure that we take those concerns seriously if we are to make the policy the success we all want it to be. 

3.9 pm 

Hywel Williams:  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time, Dr McCrea. First, I apologise on behalf of two of my Plaid Cymru colleagues. Some Members will have noted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd is speaking in the main Chamber, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr has been called away to a meeting. 

With your permission, Dr McCrea, I think it would be appropriate for me, given that we have a small group of Welsh MPs here, briefly to go off on a tangent to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, the poet Gerallt Lloyd Owen, who died yesterday. Many people here will know of him and appreciate his work. In Welsh society, the poet has an honoured place, which is sometimes strange to our friends in England who do not realise the significance that a cultural person such as that has for a small society. They are leaders in thought as well as in art. Gerallt Lloyd Owen certainly inspired generations of young Welsh people from the late ’60s onwards. As well as being a publisher of books in Welsh, he was a fine servant to his muse and to his country. If I may, I will quote two lines from one of his poems, written to one of his own heroes, Saunders Lewis. He described him in this way: 

“Y miniog ei ymenydd 

Y ffwl anfeidrol ei ffydd” 

which is, “the sharp of brain, the fool of immortal faith.” That actually describes Gerallt Lloyd Owen himself very well. He died yesterday and will be greatly missed. I will also quote one of his heroes, a poet called Llwyd o’r Bryn: 

“Daliwch heb laesu dwylo”, 

which is, essentially, “No slacking at the back,” so I had better get on and wind up. 

We have had a remarkably good-humoured debate, which is a tribute to everyone who has taken part. The debate has been of very high quality. As someone who often speaks in the afternoon on such occasions, I must say that the contributions this afternoon have also been of a high quality, including those from the hon. Member for Cardiff North. 

The Secretary of State referred to the messages of good will he has received and paid fine tribute to his predecessor. I must tell the Committee that the right hon. Member for Clwyd West made Le Monde this morning. I spotted him there while practising my not very good French; his name was on an inside page, which is a great tribute to him. Always trying to be first, I wrote my newspaper column last night and paid tribute to the new Secretary of State, saying 

“we have a new Secretary of State for Wales to replace north Wales’ very own David Jones! Stephen Crabb is the MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire. He’s young(ish) and energetic. He even has a beard! (The first Tory Minister with a beard since 1906, they say).” 

I also said: 

“He has to steer through the rather puny Wales Bill before the election, that is if it survives the tsunami of the Scottish independence referendum in September. So I’m afraid, the more it changes, the more it stays the same.” 

The Secretary of State outlined the Queen’s Speech and took interventions from many Members, including the right hon. Member for Delyn and me, on such subjects as paying attention to the needs of north Wales, help for businesses, VAT, the cost of fuel, child care and child cruelty, civil service jobs, welfare reform and much more. That indicates the scope of the debate, and Members have demonstrated a knowledge of and commitment to a wide range of subjects. The Secretary of State said that the Wales Bill would not change, but that he is open-minded about further devolution and fiscal devolution. He emphasised his support for a unified UK; I had perhaps better pass on that one. 

The hon. Member for Pontypridd said that there was an aura of fairness about the Secretary of State’s speech, but that it was only a veneer. The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about public sector wage restraint, the bedroom tax, gas and electricity prices, small and medium-sized enterprises, fairness in the workplace and people being priced out of justice, which is a very important point. Some Members will have heard the news this morning that 40% of parents appearing before the courts in child care proceedings are unrepresented. Whatever that does to the administration of justice, it is certainly not fair on those parents. I suspect the courts will soon be clogged up with people representing themselves due to quite reasonable causes, but not doing it very well. 

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the annuities Bill, the Wales Bill and tax competition. He talked, too, about synchronising Wales and Scotland and the new

model of devolution—that is, the reserved powers model, which was also referred to by the right hon. Member for Torfaen. He went on to talk about what has been termed “the war on Wales”, and I hope we saw something of a truce breaking out. The Government in Cardiff are a suitable and juicy target for criticism, but I get twitchy when I hear attacks that seem to be generalised. There is a lack of public knowledge of, and indeed an indifference to, the difference between the Assembly and the Government and the fact that devolution is a continuing process that should not be the target of attacks, possibly from the Government side. However, we all have a duty to do our best to inform and educate the public about those matters, even if we do get on to biting lumps of each other. That is important because, even now, members of the public in my constituency, despite all my efforts, do not understand such fundamental issues as health being a matter for the Assembly. 

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd spoke about the Queen’s Speech, saying that there were notable Bills in it, but that the Speech itself was rather thin. He talked about the end of the lockstep and the fact that he hoped the new Secretary of State would take a pragmatic view of devolution and improve the Wales Bill. He also went on to praise the Labour party for its commitment to a veterans Bill, which he has campaigned on for a long time. He also outlined Plaid Cymru’s alternative Queen’s Speech, although hon. Members will be pleased to know that I am not going to repeat it. I am proud of the 10 suggested Bills, out of many that we could have put forward, outlining such matters as economic fairness all the way down to a new Welsh language Bill. There is much to be done. 

The right hon. Member for Torfaen spoke about the reserved powers model and about unnecessary legal processes. He recalled the so-called war on Wales and made a pertinent point about endangering Wales’s reputation, perhaps with investors and people abroad. He talked about the value of public services, the value of public houses and their value to the community. I told him afterwards that we have co-operative public houses in my constituency and they are run very well. I know that you, Dr McCrea, take no delight in that, but people in my constituency can avail themselves of those facilities, which provide a forum for responsible enjoyment of alcoholic drinks for people who are that way inclined. 

The hon. Member for Monmouth, who is unfortunately not in his seat, talked about his good friend the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West. The hon. Gentleman accepted that there was a risk in cutting public spending, but said that Government policy had worked well. He conceded the points about the problem with real wages and then went on to talk about the Severn bridge. As someone who has used the Severn bridge and the new bridge many times, I would be glad to see a cut in the toll. He talked about reducing it to a third of its present level. 

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the fuel monopoly on the M4, fracking and the NHS, comparing Wales and England to the disfavour of Wales, before, as they used to say, the bell caught him out. I had thought he was going to entertain us this afternoon as well, but we are coming to an end of our proceedings. 

We heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Newport West, who discussed the beard issue, which is clearly going to be a theme for the press, who have

now disappeared. I am in no position to comment on hair, facial or otherwise. As the Secretary of State is now in with the Liberal Democrats and has a beard, I look forward to the day when he arrives in a pair of sandals. 

More seriously, the hon. Member for Newport West talked about the importance of winning the confidence of the public and discussed the Recall Bill, saying that it was of no practical value. He was concerned by the distortion caused by lobbying, and talked about the issue of pensions. He recalled the scandal—he would use the term “choice”—around the state earnings-related pension scheme. I was tempted to intervene on him regarding self-invested personal pensions, which was the subject of attention by the Labour Government, when they thought of allowing people to invest in any sort of assets. I led something of a campaign at the time because of my concern that people would invest in holiday homes, which would give people who could afford two homes a distinct advantage over people who could not afford even one. I am glad that the Government saw the folly of that proposal and withdrew it. 

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the value of the Newport passport office and the chaos there has been, unfortunately, in the passport service. 

The hon. Member for Ceredigion—I call him my friend—talked about the Child Maltreatment Bill, noting that one child in 10 in the UK suffers child neglect. I am glad that is being addressed in the Serious Crime Bill. He outlined the effect of neglect and the deficiency in the law. He talked about small businesses, the value of prompt payment and the negative effect of late payment. 

In my experience of running a business before my election to the House, late payment was a distinct problem. It continues to be so. My record was waiting nearly 11 months for a payment of £400 from a large, multinational organisation. It was a flea bite for the organisation, but, given that I was campaigning half the time and trying to run my business the other half, sleeping sometimes and not making a lot of money, £400 was a substantial amount. That money took 11 months to turn up, and the issue is a bane on small businesses throughout Wales. 

The hon. Gentleman also talked about child care and reiterated the points that I made on supply and on the difficulty of online claiming for some people when there is no facility to do so. He referred to rurality and the problems of provision in rural areas. Some time ago, with the help of the all-party group on Sweden, I visited that country and had a look at the child care provision there. I was not surprised to find that there is a right to child care, irrespective of location. That right can be exercised in central Stockholm or up in the north. The child care there is provided at a price, but, given the advantage to parents in providing child care properly and the undoubted economic advantages of enabling people to return to work, that is something we must look at. 

As an aside, we also met the Swedish commissioner for children. There were, I think, four important MPs from the UK who sat waiting for her for 25 minutes. She eventually turned up and explained that she had delayed her meeting with us because she had been talking to some extremely important people—a group of three and four-year-olds. She was quite right. Possibly, the

quality of debate with the three and four-year-olds might have been better than that with the slightly bewildered MPs from the UK. 

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the debate around VAT and tourism. I will add my penn’orth on the matter: I would be glad to see the Government considering cutting VAT on building renovation and repair. It seems unjust that VAT is not levied on new build. New build is not such a priority in Wales, where we have a large stock of poor—sometimes pre-1919—housing. A young couple repairing an old terraced house in the valleys would have to pay VAT, while a banker who was retiring to Bray and building a palace with several bathrooms would not have to pay VAT. That is just wrong. There is a facility to bring VAT down to 5%. The Government should investigate that and act as soon as possible. 

We had a contribution from the hon. Member for Cardiff North, which I found extremely interesting and instructive. He outlined what he called the landscape of pension reform and pointed out the common fallacy that people sometimes entertain—that people retire with large pots. However, the amount of money and the returns are sometimes pitifully small. I have referred to a couple I met some months ago, who had done the right thing, but had scarcely been rewarded for their long sacrifice. The key to the matter is proper advice, or possibly guidance. I will take an interest in the Bill as it proceeds. 

We have had a high-quality and very interesting debate. Reference was made to the possibility of, if not abandoning the Welsh Grand Committee, then somehow revitalising it. This brief debate today has gone some way to re-establishing the credentials of this forum as a useful one for right hon. and hon. Members from Wales to look at issues that affect our country. I thank Members for their participation. 

3.26 pm 

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab):  It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arfon, who seems to have done a great deal of my job in summing up the quite labyrinthine detail of some of the speeches we have heard today. 

First, I would like to add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary on their new positions. I will try to keep the tone of this speech relatively friendly. 

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention the importance of infrastructure this morning. Infrastructure is vital; indeed, it would have been nice to have had a stronger mention of it in the Queen’s Speech. It is imperative that the Welsh Government receive adequate capital funding and borrowing facilities to enable them to proceed with plans to improve transport infrastructure, hospitals, schools and housing. 

We have discussed at length our concerns about the shortcomings in the Wales Bill; about how borrowing powers are being staged, with more hurdles and proportionately less borrowing power than the facilities accorded to Scotland. It seems an absolute age ago—three Secretaries of State ago, to be precise—that the initial talks about borrowing powers for the Welsh Government took place. I therefore urge the Secretary of State and

the Under-Secretary to do everything they can to ensure the speediest access by the Welsh Government to borrowing powers. 

Over and above the investment that the Welsh Government make, there is also a UK responsibility to invest. In particular, we need the best possible connectivity between Wales and England on the one side and Ireland on the other. We have heard a lot about the plans for electrifying the railway line from London to Swansea and about the need to sort out the congestion on the M4, but it is not just the south where connectivity matters. We need improvements to roads in mid-Wales, and we need them to be fully reflected in investment on the English side of the border. Also, we have to be certain that north Wales is fully connected, not just to Crewe and High Speed 2, but to the north-west of England more generally, to Liverpool and Manchester airports, and across the trans-Pennine route to the north-east. 

Wales also provides important links from continental Europe to Ireland, with major routes through both north and south Wales. It is vital that there is continuing investment in those links—rail, road, ports and related infrastructure. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will continue to stress the need for investment and fight for that investment to ensure that we see improved links between Wales and the rest of the UK and Europe. 

Infrastructure projects such as roads and railways are important not just for connectivity from Wales but for the steel industry in Wales. Not long ago we had the sad announcement of 400 jobs lost in Port Talbot. A real problem facing the steel industry is demand, and infrastructure projects can help provide that. Even by the end of 2015 demand for steel in the UK will be only 64% of what it was in 2007. There is a shortfall and anything that can be done to bring forward those infrastructure projects, rather than just talking about them, would be welcome to Wales. We do not want to face any more job losses. 

Turning to points made by various hon. Members, I will refer first to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who I understand has been in the Chamber this afternoon. He rightly described the content of the Queen’s Speech as thin. He spoke of the fragility of the economy, the failure to rebalance it and the dangers of a housing boom. He spoke of a funding shortfall for Wales but welcomed measures on organised crime. He went on to explain the Plaid Cymru alternative programme. 

My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen spoke clearly and explained well why it would be better to move to a reserve-powers model. There is still an opportunity, with the Bill going through the Lords, for the new Front-Bench team to move towards that. He spoke of the complete fiasco of the Agricultural Wages Board, the waste of money and time. That was completely unprofessional when there was a perfectly good mechanism in the joint ministerial Committee that could be used to resolve differences. My right hon. Friend speaks from great experience in the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office. 

He also mentioned the more light-hearted subject of pubs and stressed the need to move ahead with a statutory code and an adjudicator to tackle the exploitation by pubcos. That is a long overdue reform. We hope the

Government team will push colleagues to get on with that. He also mentioned the option to have a guest ale in a tied pub. I am sure he is a connoisseur of the best that is available. 

The hon. Member for Monmouth focused on the economy. He again mentioned the Severn bridge and the fact that the Treasury has done rather well out of the tax changes. He questioned why so much money needed to go back there at the end of the concession. I know he will continue to campaign hard on that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East. 

He also mentioned the monopolies of oil companies on motorways, resulting in a lack of competition and higher prices. That desperately needs to be tackled. Remarkably, it bears a close resemblance to what we want to do with the energy companies. We talk about not just a price freeze, but breaking up companies, improving competition and delivering a better deal for the consumer. In many ways, what the hon. Gentleman said about oil companies and the way they treat customers at the petrol pump is very similar. They look at opportunities to carve out monopolies for themselves and effectively control the price so that the consumer has little option to go elsewhere. There are certainly points there that need to be looked into. 

David T. C. Davies:  I would like to make it clear that I was not making a direct comparison with the energy companies and would not seek to do so. That was a very clever way to make a Labour party point but I am not about to join the hon. Lady’s campaign just yet. 

Nia Griffith:  I would expect no other response from the hon. Gentleman. It comes back to trying to get the best for the consumer and looking at how competition does or does not work. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West treated us to a wide-ranging speech and I will not summarise all of it. I will mention a couple of things, including the absolute chaos of programmes run by Capita and Atos, which I draw to the Minister’s attention. I hope that he can prevail upon colleagues to sort that out, because we have seen absolute misery. We are not against welfare reform, but what has happened—people being without money for significant periods—has caused intense hardship. People have had to go for examination repeatedly—again and again and again—which is extremely wasteful of Government resources, so there is a huge issue there. 

My hon. Friend focused specifically on the loss of jobs in the Ministry of Justice and the passport office and the chaos that that has caused. I will return to that in a moment. 

The hon. Member for Ceredigion has worked hard on tackling child neglect and it is heartening to see that his work is now bearing fruit, through not only the private Member’s Bill, but now Government legislation. We will be pleased to support that work. He justified clearly why he wants to push it forward. 

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned welfare reform and in particular the difficulties of the bedroom tax in rural areas. He may have read the report published yesterday that shows the particular difficulties in Wales and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will take this on board. In Wales, 60% of providers are now saying that they have properties that they find

difficult to allocate, because most of their stock is three-bedroom houses and couples with two small children do not qualify for three bedrooms That is therefore becoming a real problem. The providers cannot find people to put in such properties who will not subsequently be penalised by the bedroom tax. That contrasts with the situation in London, where the figure is less than 10% because the housing stock and needs are different. Please can we have another look at Wales being considered a special case, because, together with the north of England, it is clearly completely different from other parts of the UK? 

I will not in any way try to summarise the expertise given by the hon. Member for Cardiff North on the pension industry, but he certainly highlighted some of the issues. He pointed out that often we are not talking about huge amounts of money, but the decisions are significant for the people concerned. 

The hon. Member for Arfon gave a moving tribute to Gerallt Lloyd Owen and summed up today’s debate. He also mentioned his time in Sweden and the child care model provided there, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion also raised. The hon. Member for Arfon asked how enough different options can be provided that are equally accessible for someone in a rural area who is trying to balance travelling to work and getting back in time to pick up their children. That is not easy; rurality certainly challenges us. 

I want to know what the Secretary of State and the Minister will do to try to fight for the economy and growth in Wales. We have seen unbalanced growth, concentrated in London and the south-east. They cannot change centuries of history overnight, and I will not ask them to do that, but what strategies will they bring forward to try to redress the balance? 

In the past we had policies deliberately to move public sector jobs out of London and the south-east, so we have the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency office in Swansea and the passport office in Newport. However, in the past couple of years we have seen a retraction of such jobs, with a net loss of jobs in Wales in Companies House, the Driving Standards Agency, the DVLA, the Ministry of Justice and the passport office. 

The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb):  The shadow Minister caricatures the economic recovery as being unbalanced and concentrated in London and the south-east as if it is not having an impact in Wales. In the time in which the Government have been in office, unemployment in her constituency has seen one of the most significant drops in Wales: it is down by 34%. She should be standing up today and welcoming the fact that there is an economic recovery in Wales and that businesses in Llanelli are creating new jobs. 

Nia Griffith:  The issue is that 40% of foreign direct investment is still coming into London and the south-east. That is the real challenge. We do not want to be complacent; we want to move forward and to challenge where that money is going. 

What is happening in UKTI? When an official came before the Welsh Affairs Committee, we asked him what types of investment he directs towards Wales. We asked, “What about financial activities? Would you direct those towards Wales?” He replied, “Oh well, if some back-office

jobs are attached, they could go to Wales.” He has obviously not been sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West, who would tell him that Swansea has the UK’s largest trading floor outside London. To be told that Wales is suitable only for back-office jobs in finance is an absolute insult. I stress that there is still a huge challenge to deal with perception and to bring in different forms of investment. We want to ensure that UKTI is up to the mark and is representing Wales. 

On other aspects of the Queen’s Speech, we felt that some measures were a little lightweight and half-hearted. The good thing was that some were taking up issues that Labour has highlighted, although in a rather moderate and half-hearted fashion. Let me give a few examples. This year, we at least saw a rise in the minimum wage that just about covers inflation—by about 0.1%—but we have had several years in which it was eroded. That has been detrimental to many people in Wales. When we have 80,000 people in Wales using food banks and 300,000 making do with less than a living wage, the minimum wage is crucial, and it should be rising properly. 

We now have a proposed measure to strengthen the ways in which we can prosecute those who do not implement the minimum wage properly or who try to exploit people by making them work extra hours or making their wage average come out at less than the minimum wage. Obviously, we appreciate that and we want the measure to go ahead, but quite why it has not yet been implemented as it should have been is another issue. The missed opportunity, however, was to link the national minimum wage with some form of upgrading on a permanent basis—we are suggesting bringing it up to about 60% of the median wage. Likewise with the living wage, we want to incentivise employers through tax breaks. That would not be costly to the Exchequer because of the savings in tax credits and housing benefit. 

I am pleased to see the coalition picking up on zero-hours contracts, but it is dealing only with the exclusivity clause, not the actual contract. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has shown that it is possible to work together with big employers to look at flexibility and to deliver on annualised contracts, which are proper contracts that give people proper contractual rights, while keeping flexibility for the company concerned. A lot remains to be done. 

I will not mention the energy freeze again, other than to say that there was a missed opportunity to do something about the regulator and to strengthen its position and powers to deal with some of the rip offs that people face. That could easily have been taken up by the Government. 

We really need friends, and I hope that the Secretary of State will make good friends in Cabinet. Let me talk about some of his Friends. The Foreign Secretary is a Eurosceptic, who has said that he would vote to take us out of the European Union if he does not get the concessions that he would like to get, though we are not sure quite what those are. I simply point out that 150,000 jobs in Wales depend on us being in the EU. Future investment by companies depends on them being certain that there will be an EU market and that they will not be faced with big tariffs. People coming in from outside Europe, deciding where to put their factories,

also want to know that they will be inside the market. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to make it absolutely clear that we do not want negative messages about Europe—apart from the investment, we benefit significantly from the structural and agricultural funds. 

Talking about agriculture, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has excellent agricultural credentials, having made her name by defeating the so-called turnip Taliban. I hope that the Minister will point out to her the considerable success of the Welsh Government in dealing with bovine TB through progressive mechanisms such as animal husbandry and vaccination. Badgers do not respect political boundaries, so I hope she will be able to work with the Welsh Government to make sure that we get the best outcomes on both sides of the border. 

I will raise one another concern, about the incoming Energy Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who has campaigned against wind turbines in his constituency. Again, I emphasise the need to make sure there are clear messages going out to industry that we want investment in renewables. We do not want shilly-shallying about whether it is this one, that one or the other one—we want consistency and certainty in our industrial policy. 

I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will fight hard for Wales and convince their colleagues to do their best for Wales as well. 

3.46 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns):  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and it is particularly so in my new capacity. I place on record my thanks to Mr Owen for his chairmanship of this morning’s sitting. 

I pay tribute to the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West, for his unstinting work in supporting Wales and standing up for Wales here in Westminster, and for the part he played in gaining the significant infrastructure changes that are coming about in Wales. We need to recognise that record in the positive way it rightly deserves. I congratulate my colleague the Secretary of State on his appointment, and would like to express my appreciation for the warm comments from all Members in the Committee Room this afternoon. 

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con):  I offer my congratulations to the Minister. I am sure he will have a long and successful ministerial career. I extend those same best wishes and congratulations to the Secretary of State. 

Alun Cairns:  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind and generous comments. 

It is fair to say that the tone of today’s debate has been constructive, which has been welcomed on the Government Benches. Several themes have come out, but without question the overwhelming theme has been facial hair—with the exception of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Llanelli, there has not been a Member who has not mentioned it. It may have caused some humour but has obviously contributed to the way in which the debate in today’s Welsh Grand Committee has been heard and the tone of the contributions. 

That takes me back to the first Welsh Grand Committee I had the pleasure and privilege of attending, which was somewhat fraught. It was extremely difficult and challenging, to say the least. I hope the constructive tone today will be the tone in which the Welsh Grand Committee can continue, highlighting important Welsh issues that need proper consideration here and in Cardiff Bay. 

Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC):  I agree with the Minister, but in case he is lulled into a false sense of security, I point out that it is towards the end of term. Next term is another chapter, and it could be colder then, so it will be a bit more vicious. 

Alun Cairns:  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I would say that the tone today has demonstrated a much more intelligent level of scrutiny, rather than ending up with “he said, she said” arguments and the like. 

This is the fourth and final legislative Session of this Parliament. The Government have maintained the course set out in 2010 to implement our long-term economic plan to build a stronger and fairer society. Through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and the Infrastructure Bill we continue to promote economic growth and deficit reduction. In the pensions tax Bill, the Pension Schemes Bill and the Childcare Payments Bill we have brought forward legislation to implement important social reforms. Through the Modern Slavery Bill and the Serious Crime Bill we will strengthen the justice system and improve crime prevention. 

I am pleased that some of the Bills in this fourth Session have been broadly welcomed by all parts of the House, such as the Modern Slavery Bill, which will provide law enforcement agencies with stronger tools to stamp out the scourge of modern slavery and ensure that those who seek to perpetuate it receive suitable penalties. However, there are other measures where differences of opinion exist, as today’s debate has demonstrated, and I therefore turn to some of the points that right hon. and hon. Members have raised. 

The shadow Secretary of State highlighted a number of serious issues that need consideration in relation to income levels, welfare reform, the spare room subsidy, pensions and the consequences of the Supreme Court judgment. I will come back to some of those to offer a little bit more detail in a moment, but I want to spend some time highlighting some of the other issues raised in the debate. 

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd demonstrated the support that exists on both sides of the House for significant parts of the Gracious Speech: the Modern Slavery Bill, the Serious Crime Bill, the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill and the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill are just some examples. He highlighted some genuine concerns in relation to shale gas extraction and fracking, to which he is absolutely opposed. We try to show a more pragmatic approach, and as more evidence comes to light, that will be considered. I hope that we can get to an intelligent debate surrounding shale gas extraction and fracking and I remind Members that planning permission is the key gateway in relation to this as it stands. Planning powers in most areas are devolved, so a mutual understanding with the Welsh Government about their objectives and how they want

to implement them is needed as part of that intelligent debate. There have been some considerations in my constituency, where the local planning committee has rejected applications but then the Welsh Government overruled it. There is a need for guidance. That guidance on how such applications should be considered must come from both the UK Government and from the Welsh Government. It is an important area of policy, which will continue to develop for a number of years, not only in the next Parliament. 

Several Members referred to the balance of the economy. The shadow Under-Secretary closed on the need for balanced growth and questioned that, as did the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who even suggested that it was a housing boom that was fuelling the growth. 

Mr Llwyd:  Partly. 

Alun Cairns:  Partly, as the right hon. Gentleman says. I do not accept that. All nations and regions across the UK grew last year but it was the first time in almost a decade that every sector within the economy also grew. Manufacturing is one of the fastest-growing sectors across the UK. It is important that Wales plays a significant part in that in terms of driving exports because we have a disproportionate dependence on manufacturing in Wales and we need to capitalise on the opportunity that other nations and regions across the UK are also taking. Joint working with the Welsh Government in supporting our manufacturing sectors will play an important part in that. 

The lockstep was mentioned and I will try to come to that in a little bit more detail in the time remaining. 

The right hon. Member for Torfaen talked about pubs and pub companies. There is a genuine concern. We all have publican constituents who express concern about how they are treated by the pub companies. Sometimes, having pursued constituency cases, I have found that the pub companies come out with an opposing argument. That is why the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill sets the framework in which those differences can be resolved in a positive way. Clearly, it is in the community’s interest that the pub thrives—I absolutely recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of the pub to the community—but it is also in the pub company’s interest that it does so, and I hope that the Bill, when passed, will serve both purposes. 

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned reserved powers and the Wales Bill and I will try to come back to that in a moment. He also made a point about the joint ministerial Committee. It is my second day in this role and I must admit that I am not yet absolutely familiar with all the intricacies of the joint ministerial Committee, as he would be. However, I underline that the Government of Wales Act 2006 clearly established a mechanism for some of those differences to be resolved. He will have played a part in the drafting, development and implementation of that Act, and it is a bit invidious to criticise a Government who are merely using the processes that are contained in the Act. Granted, I have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the joint ministerial Committee, and it may well be that more use can be made of it. I have no doubt that it is something the Secretary of State will want to explore. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth highlighted the importance of the economy and the particular relevance of the Severn bridge, not only to his constituency, but to the whole of south Wales. It plays an important part in the economy there. The Government have made statements, but it is a debate that will continue to run. It is important that the Government recognise the impact of the bridge not only on Monmouthshire, but on the whole of south Wales. 

In the time remaining, I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion for the part that he has played in the Serious Crime Bill. That really needs to be underlined, and I bow to the expertise that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North demonstrated when he talked about the pensions tax Bill. I hope that in the Bill, freedoms are recognised, but there is obviously a responsibility that falls to individuals and the Government for ensuring that appropriate advice is given. Risks go with it and they need to be considered as the Bill proceeds through the House. 

I pay tribute, as the hon. Member for Arfon highlighted, to the role that Gerallt Lloyd Owen has played in the cultural life of Wales for such a considerable period. I remember how much pleasure I used to have in hearing him, most years at the Eisteddfod I must admit, where he would be demonstrating the skill that he had and his contribution to Welsh cultural life. 

In the remaining time, I want to go back to some points that were made. A number of Members raised zero-hours contracts. We need to recognise that zero-hours contracts offer valuable, flexible working opportunities for students, older people and other people looking to

top up their income and find work that suits their personal circumstances. The Government recognise, however, that there are loopholes in the current legislation that are open to abuse by unscrupulous employers. We are therefore addressing that through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill by banning exclusivity in zero-hours contracts. I hope that the Opposition will play a part in recognising the significant step that that is. They need to say whether they absolutely oppose zero-hours contracts or not. 

Owen Smith  rose—  

Alun Cairns:  I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Clearly, Labour-controlled local authorities make active use of zero-hours contracts and that is not a criticism; it is simply a reality of individual circumstances and the finances of authorities. 

Owen Smith:  Would the Minister like to be on a zero-hours contract? 

Alun Cairns:  We need to recognise that individual circumstances are very different and it is also worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that some Labour MPs employ people on zero-hours contracts, and many Labour-run local authorities have the opportunity of ruling out zero-hours contracts. Let us not be idealistic about this; let us be pragmatic and accept the part that zero-hours contracts play in providing a flexible economy. 

Within the final— 

4 pm 

Committee adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 108(5)).