Welsh Affairs

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree absolutely. The Energy and Climate Change Committee has just produced a compelling report that clearly demonstrates that we are losing investment and jobs precisely because of the mixed messages and signals that this Government send to investors. Business abhors a vacuum. Business needs stability. It needs to know whether there will be a return on its investments, and at present it sees no evidence whatever of that in the United Kingdom.

Wales, and south-west Wales in particular, can also be at the forefront of an internet revolution. Swansea Bay city region has based its city deal proposal on the concept of an “internet coast” to drive the digital future of energy, health and economic acceleration. All eyes are on the Chancellor. If he really wants a “march of the makers”, he must give his full backing to that exciting vision. The Swansea University bay campus, which, I emphasise, is based in my Aberavon constituency, has a huge role to play in the development of the internet coast. I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for verification of that.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Stephen Kinnock]

This outstanding project, made possible by EU and European Investment Bank funding, is one of the largest and most important knowledge economy projects in Europe, producing cutting-edge research focusing on science and innovation.

The “internet coast” is a plan for the future. It is a pity the same cannot be said of the Government’s draft Wales Bill, which does not provide anything like the lasting settlement that it was intended to create. Instead, it has thrown up more uncertainties around the legislative process, and succeeds only in generating reams of constitutional red tape. Just this week the Welsh Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), called on the Government to pause the proposed timetable for the Bill so that there is opportunity to reflect fully. That is the least that is needed. My specific concern is about ministerial consent and the risk that the process is seen as tantamount to an English veto, but my more general concern is that the Bill has been drafted in a bubble, isolated from the broader debate about the constitutional reform that our country so desperately needs.

The UK is more centralised than any other leading industrialised economy, and the Scottish referendum demonstrated that the constitutional foundations of the UK are cracking beneath our feet. The British people need and deserve better. The piecemeal, make-do and muddle-through approach that is epitomised by this Wales Bill is simply not going to get the job done. We must, therefore, have a full constitutional convention that would formulate a bold, radical, rational, root-and-branch reform of our constitution. The convention would develop a written constitution that is anchored in a confederal UK, an elected senate, a more proportional electoral system, and properly defined devolution of powers to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

We have also seen the results of government by muddle in Wales with the Trade Union Bill. Having taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the Government have found that the nut is not entirely theirs to crack in the first place. I am delighted that my Labour colleagues have stood eyeball to eyeball with the Government, and it was the Government who blinked first. The Trade Union Bill, coupled with the changes in voter registration and the alterations in constituency boundaries, are blatant and disgraceful attempts to turn the UK into a one-party state, the thinly veiled agenda being to eradicate parliamentary opposition altogether. Vladimir Putin would be proud of such fixing. Wales is disproportionately hit by the boundary changes, losing around a quarter of our MPs, reducing Wales’s voice in the House and marginalising the Welsh people.

There is great potential in Wales, but we will realise that potential only with bold leadership. There is vision and willingness in Cardiff Bay, but we find those qualities abysmally lacking on the Government Benches. As we go into elections in May, we should remember all that we have to be proud of in Wales: a Labour Government delivering for working people, creating 50,000 apprenticeships and getting 15,000 young people back to work with Jobs Growth Wales; ground-breaking legislation on violence against women; a Labour Government who have improved the cancer survival rate faster than anywhere in the UK, and who are training more nurses than ever before; a Labour Government who stood up to Westminster to protect farm workers’ wages; a Labour Government who stood by Remploy, while the Tories were shutting it down across the rest of the UK.

Let us remember that it is the work of the Welsh Labour Government under the leadership of First Minister Carwyn Jones that has enabled the creation of 750 jobs at Aston Martin in St Athan. Under Carwyn, Labour will make use of the Welsh Government’s new powers by cutting business rates for small businesses and supporting entrepreneurship, growth and jobs. That is the kind of leadership we need in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

We have become very accustomed to waiting for things in Wales. We waited a very long time for rail electrification, we waited patiently to get the Welsh national football team into the Euros, and we waited a very long time for a Welsh premier league football club, but now Swansea City is there. Today, we waited a very long time for the Secretary of State to make an appearance in this very important debate. Either our performances are not up to scratch or he has had a better offer, because he has chosen to leave the Chamber.

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

I am happy to announce to the hon. Lady that the Secretary of State has an important telephone conversation with the Minister for Economy, Science and Transport in the Welsh Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris]

It was nice to see him for a short period of time.

We are now waiting for a review of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. We waited a full year for the negotiations between the developer and the Government, and now we are being asked to wait while the Government establish an independent review of tidal lagoons nationwide. My first reaction to that news was to ask the very same questions that many of my constituents threw at me. Why are the goalposts being moved again? After so much talking, what is there left to learn? Is it a sign that the Government are serious about the project, or is it an airports-style way of kicking it into touch without losing votes in an election year in Wales?

Having discussed the review with the developer, I am encouraged because although it thinks the wait is frustrating, it is optimistic that the scene is being set for success. It has to be hoped that the launch of an independent review of tidal lagoons represents a new level of commitment from the Government. I hope that if the Government are investing time and money in reviewing the concept, they too can see the potential of this exciting new industry. If the review is genuinely meant to be the vehicle through which this technology can at last be realised, it will be to the good, but if this stalling is just to kick the scheme into the long grass, it will be a travesty.

Wales and my constituency of Swansea East will be the big winners from the launch of a UK tidal lagoon, but the whole country will share the success of this globally ground-breaking innovation. I look forward eagerly to the quick formation of a committee and a chair—a committee that, one naturally assumes, will have Welsh representation among its members. I look forward to seeing the details of how the review will operate, who will be involved and when it will report. I will follow those developments closely, as I know many people here and in the other place will. We also eagerly await updates from the Department of Energy and Climate Change regarding the progression of negotiations on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon.

The UK needs to seize this opportunity. We have to be seen as the leader, not a follower, in tidal power. We have the potential to have the first tidal lagoon in the world to secure planning permission. The project can be delivered, and it could match costs with other energy projects that are springing up around the country. Swansea East is ready to host this new global industry, and Swansea is ready to be that leader.

What may be lost on many Members is the effect that the lagoon has already had in transforming my community. People have bought into the vision in a way that has not been seen before, and as that vision has become ever more real it has brought with it a new high morale and a new can-do attitude. It has given rise to many plans, from small businesses in and around Swansea bay to the industrial facilities that are ready to win contracts for the Swansea bay city region and the Sir Terry Matthews strategy for a city deal. As plans for further tidal lagoons around the Welsh coastline start to take shape, the sense of optimism will spread.

There is growing international interest in the plans, which are putting Swansea and Wales on the map. I conclude my speech in this St David’s day debate with a message for all colleagues in the House: here is an issue on which we can and should all agree. Here is an opportunity that the whole of Wales and the UK can benefit from. Let us work together and ensure that tidal power brings world acclaim to Swansea, Wales and Great Britain, and that we have the first tidal lagoon in the world. On the morning when a tidal lagoon opens for the first time, the words “good morning” need to be spoken as “bore da”, not “bonjour”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very proud of the NHS in Oxfordshire and everyone who works in it. Having met the head of the Oxford Radcliffe trust recently, I know that he supports the move towards more seven-day services. That is absolutely vital.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Ask your mother!

[The Prime Minister]

Ask my mother? I know what my mother would say. She would look across the Dispatch Box and say, “Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.”

Draft Wales Bill

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your excellent stewardship for the second time this week, Mr Hanson, for my very first Welsh Grand Committee?

As members of the party that was the architect of devolution, my colleagues and I would naturally support a Bill that moved to elevate the Assembly to a reserved powers model, but the draft Bill we have been presented with is, in reality, an instrument to roll back the powers of the Assembly and make its ability to govern effectively restrictive and cumbersome.

As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I have spent many long hours pondering the Bill and hearing substantial evidence on it. The conclusion I have reached is that the Bill is, at best, fragmented, patchwork and arguably a complete shambles. Throughout the evidence sessions of the Committee, we repeatedly heard widespread condemnation of the draft Bill from the legal profession and noted academics. We read in the press that there has also been condemnation from within the Conservative party itself.

I will touch on two areas today: energy and the necessity test. I welcome the initiative to allow the Welsh Assembly to have authority over onshore oil and gas extraction, including fracking. I also welcome the move to allow the Welsh Assembly to grant planning consent for energy projects of a capacity of up to 350 MW. However, I am sure that large renewable investors in Wales will be disappointed with that limit.

It could be argued that if the renewables industry in Wales is to survive, companies need to be confident that they have a guaranteed price for energy—a so-called subsidy-free contract for difference. They need confidence in planning decisions for both developments and the associated grid, so the draft Wales Bill should allow planning decisions on both those things to be made in Cardiff, not in Westminster. The renewable energy industry needs that boost; it needs the confidence to allow it to continue to attract investors.

[Craig Williams]

Does the hon. Lady welcome, in the spirit of the Bill and localism, the fact that the power she succinctly puts forward is coming to local authorities in Wales through the Energy Bill? Local authorities will be able to grant that power.

[Carolyn Harris]

I can only speak for those in the industry who have lobbied me, who feel that the Wales Bill will give them no confidence to attract investors. The current provisions are not sufficient.

The Government of Wales Act 2006, which governs how the Assembly currently operates, contains basic tests that the Assembly must meet before it can legislate. However, the draft Bill increases the number of tests from nine to 13. The Assembly’s own Presiding Officer and others have pointed out that that will make the work of the Assembly far more complicated.

There is much controversy around the necessity test. The remit of the test is that the Assembly must be convinced the Act to be passed is necessary. The draft Wales Bill is littered with references to the necessity test. For example, the Welsh Assembly will only be able to modify the law if it is convinced that that will have

“no greater effect on the general application of the private…law than is necessary”.

Even “necessity” has various definitions. The Assembly’s director of legal services agreed with that point and referred to necessity’s several different meanings in law. As a consequence, more cases could end up in the Supreme Court to decide what necessity means in each particular context. That will only cause confusion, slow down the Assembly’s work and ultimately cost the taxpayer significant money.

The Law Society of England and Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen mentioned, also warned that the necessity tests are drafted in such a way that they could be challenged in the course of ordinary civil or criminal cases. Surely the Assembly, as an elected body, should be allowed to make decisions on the policy areas that are devolved to it. There should be no demand on it to justify a policy it wants to implement as necessary. It would be in the interests of all if the necessity test were entirely removed from the Wales Bill.

I would like to thank the Secretary of State and his officials for all their hard work but I suggest they go away, sleep on it and come back with a completely different draft Bill.

Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman’s charge is untrue on so many levels. The Conservative-led coalition Government held the referendum and we recognise that that was a game changer in terms of devolution for Wales. A large majority of people who participated in that referendum voted for full law-making powers in the areas that were devolved. They were never asked to agree that the devolution boundaries should be redrawn. It is the role of elected Governments to make decisions about where the devolution boundary lies.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

How does the Secretary of State expect the Assembly to function as a law-making body without the ability to change the laws?

[Stephen Crabb]

We absolutely do want it to be a law-making body. We want it to have the freedom to give expression to its law-making powers. That means having the ability to change the law to enforce its legislation—I think that is the point the hon. Lady is getting at. Nothing in the Bill prevents the devolved Government from doing that. We do not want inhibitions around the Welsh Government making law in the areas that are devolved to them. However, when there are spillover effects from making law, the Bill, rightly in my view, raises a safeguard—a boundary, a hurdle—so that those spillover effects are not more than is necessary.

Draft Wales Bill

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your excellent stewardship for the second time this week, Mr Hanson, for my very first Welsh Grand Committee?

As members of the party that was the architect of devolution, my colleagues and I would naturally support a Bill that moved to elevate the Assembly to a reserved powers model, but the draft Bill we have been presented with is, in reality, an instrument to roll back the powers of the Assembly and make its ability to govern effectively restrictive and cumbersome.

As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I have spent many long hours pondering the Bill and hearing substantial evidence on it. The conclusion I have reached is that the Bill is, at best, fragmented, patchwork and arguably a complete shambles. Throughout the evidence sessions of the Committee, we repeatedly heard widespread condemnation of the draft Bill from the legal profession and noted academics. We read in the press that there has also been condemnation from within the Conservative party itself.

I will touch on two areas today: energy and the necessity test. I welcome the initiative to allow the Welsh Assembly to have authority over onshore oil and gas extraction, including fracking. I also welcome the move to allow the Welsh Assembly to grant planning consent for energy projects of a capacity of up to 350 MW. However, I am sure that large renewable investors in Wales will be disappointed with that limit.

It could be argued that if the renewables industry in Wales is to survive, companies need to be confident that they have a guaranteed price for energy—a so-called subsidy-free contract for difference. They need confidence in planning decisions for both developments and the associated grid, so the draft Wales Bill should allow planning decisions on both those things to be made in Cardiff, not in Westminster. The renewable energy industry needs that boost; it needs the confidence to allow it to continue to attract investors.

[Craig Williams]

Does the hon. Lady welcome, in the spirit of the Bill and localism, the fact that the power she succinctly puts forward is coming to local authorities in Wales through the Energy Bill? Local authorities will be able to grant that power.

[Carolyn Harris]

I can only speak for those in the industry who have lobbied me, who feel that the Wales Bill will give them no confidence to attract investors. The current provisions are not sufficient.

The Government of Wales Act 2006, which governs how the Assembly currently operates, contains basic tests that the Assembly must meet before it can legislate. However, the draft Bill increases the number of tests from nine to 13. The Assembly’s own Presiding Officer and others have pointed out that that will make the work of the Assembly far more complicated.

There is much controversy around the necessity test. The remit of the test is that the Assembly must be convinced the Act to be passed is necessary. The draft Wales Bill is littered with references to the necessity test. For example, the Welsh Assembly will only be able to modify the law if it is convinced that that will have

“no greater effect on the general application of the private…law than is necessary”.

Even “necessity” has various definitions. The Assembly’s director of legal services agreed with that point and referred to necessity’s several different meanings in law. As a consequence, more cases could end up in the Supreme Court to decide what necessity means in each particular context. That will only cause confusion, slow down the Assembly’s work and ultimately cost the taxpayer significant money.

The Law Society of England and Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen mentioned, also warned that the necessity tests are drafted in such a way that they could be challenged in the course of ordinary civil or criminal cases. Surely the Assembly, as an elected body, should be allowed to make decisions on the policy areas that are devolved to it. There should be no demand on it to justify a policy it wants to implement as necessary. It would be in the interests of all if the necessity test were entirely removed from the Wales Bill.

I would like to thank the Secretary of State and his officials for all their hard work but I suggest they go away, sleep on it and come back with a completely different draft Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on future funding of S4C.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on future funding of S4C.

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

The Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues which provide opportunities to discuss a range of issues, including matters related to the funding of services across Wales such as the future funding of S4C.

[Alun Cairns]

We will meet our manifesto commitment to

“safeguard the funding and editorial independence of S4C.”

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Prime Minister say that we would

“meet…the wording and spirit of our manifesto commitment.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 281.]

He will also remember that on the evening before there was a debate proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) to which the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy responded by saying that he was looking at the arguments and keen to engage positively.

[Carolyn Harris]

I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning last Tuesday’s debate because I too want to talk about the wonderful consensus that broke out in the Chamber regarding S4C’s funding. Given that consensus, will he remind his colleagues at DCMS that he has a statutory duty to protect S4C’s funding? Will he also join us in offering his personal support for an independent review of S4C?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Lady took part in that debate and she will recognise the way in which the Minister responded. He said that he was listening to the arguments and that he wanted to engage as positively as he could. I hope that she recognises the spirit in which that was intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about this very big move in the oil prices. It of course has a highly beneficial effect for all our constituents, who are able to fill up their cars for less than £1 a litre, which is a very big increase in people’s disposable income and wholly welcome. I think that a low oil price basically is good for the British economy as an economy that is a substantial manufacturing and production economy, but of course there are other consequences and he named many of them. We need to look very carefully at how we can help our own oil and gas industry. Of course, as we are coming to the end of Prime Minister’s questions, I should say that he did mention one other calamity that the low oil price brings about, which is that it has led to a complete and utter collapse of the Scottish National party’s policy.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Recent press reports suggest that although some—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady must be heard.

[Carolyn Harris]

Recent press reports suggest that although some on the Government’s Back Benches would agree with me—despite the fact that my background would be what the Prime Minister would consider to be “menial”—in calling for a reduction in the stake from a maximum £100 a minute on fixed-odds betting terminals, the Cabinet Office seems reluctant to review this £1.6 million industry and refuses to bring it under scrutiny. Can the Prime Minister assure the public that his Government will undertake a review of this dangerous, addictive and ever-growing problem?

[The Prime Minister]

We have looked at the problem and at the industry, and we have made a series of changes, including planning changes, but we will keep that important situation under review.

Barnett Floor (Wales)

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Neath Port Talbot example further illustrates and reinforces the point that I made about Torfaen.

The debate deals with an aspect of Westminster funding, the so-called Barnett floor. As Members are aware, Joel—later Lord—Barnett introduced the Barnett formula in 1978, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the context of the devolution debate of that era. He did not originally intend that it should become a permanent feature, yet here, some 37 years later, it still governs the Wales-Westminster fiscal relationship.

More recently, in 2009, the interim report of the Holtham commission, “Funding devolved government in Wales: Barnett and beyond”, was published. It suggested that Wales was underfunded.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the 2009 Holtham report suggesting the implementation of a floor, it is frustrating that six years later we have still not seen it happen?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I will come to that in a moment.

The report suggested that Wales was underfunded by £300 million a year compared with how much English regions would receive were the Barnett formula applied to them. In 2010, when the final Holtham report, “Fairness and accountability: a new funding settlement for Wales”, was published, the underfunding gap was even wider, at about £400 million a year, using a needs-based formula.

As my hon. Friend has just pointed out, to prevent a further decline in relative funding per head for Wales, the Holtham interim report had called for a Barnett floor as a temporary solution until a new needs-based formula could be agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

The figures of £7 billion to £16 billion have been repeated time and again, but Holtham identified that during that period Wales’s relative position was worse. As I have said, the changes made over the past five years have put current spending in Wales within the Holtham range, as acknowledged by the Welsh Government.

[Carolyn Harris]

Will the Minister assure this Chamber that Wales will not be further disadvantaged in the upcoming spending review?

[Alun Cairns]

The spending review is a matter for the Chancellor. We, as a Conservative Government, are delivering on our commitment to introduce the Barnett floor, as we have announced, alongside the spending review. That commitment was repeated in our manifesto and the floor will be introduced, as announced.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

The information the hon. Lady refers to was used for illustrative purposes only. I think it is actually helpful to provide information based around real-life case studies so that people can understand how changes we make affect families in different circumstances.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the completion date for electrification of the Great Western line.

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

I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He and I share a total commitment to the electrification of the Great Western line all the way through to Swansea. Both he and the Prime Minister have been clear about the priority we all place on this strategic project.

[Carolyn Harris]

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State told the Welsh Affairs Committee about Sir Peter Hendy’s stakeholder consultation. Are all the stakeholders committed to the project and, more importantly, did he share the UK Government’s commitment to the project with Sir Peter?

[Stephen Crabb]

What matters above all else is our commitment, from the Prime Minister downwards, to completing the project. Opposition Members have expressed a lot of concern about the progress of the project. If they do not believe it is happening, I would encourage the hon. Lady and her colleagues to walk the length of the route, because they will see work happening right now to deliver this really important project.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the level of funding received by the Welsh Government.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the level of funding received by the Welsh Government.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the level of funding received by the Welsh Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

We are aware of the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency. We stay in close touch with Jobcentre Plus and the Welsh Government to find ways to support those who face uncertainty over their jobs. We have just been through an election campaign in which responsibility over finances was at the heart of the debate. The fact that she is standing here today, saying that the Welsh Government should somehow be immune from shouldering any of the responsibility for getting on top of our national finances, shows that she has learned nothing from the past five years.

[Carolyn Harris]

Wales did not benefit from Barnett consequentials from the Olympics. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether south Wales will benefit from HS2? If it will not, will there be a Barnett consequential?

[Stephen Crabb]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. HS2 is a strategic project that will benefit the whole United Kingdom. It will benefit Wales, not least through the new hub station at Crewe, which will increase the potential for electrification in north Wales. On that basis, there is no argument for a Barnett consequential.