European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between David Jones and Albert Owen

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

My right hon. Friend is right to press the Minister, because we have had some very thin talk on this important matter. The industry wants this working party, and it wants Government to give some clear assurances. I make my appeal to the Minister, through my right hon. Friend, to do that tonight. I am sure that he is listening.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

It is always interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). I will concentrate my brief remarks on Euratom. As the Minister and the Committee will know, its principal goals are the promotion of research and the dissemination of information; the establishment of safety standards; and facilitating investment. It also governs the supply of ore and nuclear fuels.

Euratom establishes a nuclear common market. The Eurosceptics always used to say, “We want to be in the common market,” yet their decision is to pull out of it. I believe that the Government want to retain the principal goals, and they stated on the publication of the Bill that we are leaving Euratom only because of legally binding arrangements, but that is debatable—I have seen conflicting legal advice—and cynics suggest that it is more to do with the European Court of Justice.

The Government say that they support Euratom and want us to continue both to co-operate and to have the highest standards. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) is absolutely right that we are world leaders on nuclear standards, but in co-operation with other countries, which is why it is so important to keep Euratom, the umbrella body.

The purpose of new clause 192, which is supported by the industry and industry bodies, is to continue co-operation and have greater certainty. I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who was very courteous. He said he had met the industry and was sure that we will be able to continue outside Euratom, but that is not what the industry in general believes. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) said that the management of the JET energy research programme in Oxfordshire did not want the proposal, but the workforce have lobbied me in great numbers through the union, saying that there are risks if we pull out.

Access to information and data sharing are important. We will be way behind if we pull out. Companies in the industry need to plan in advance; they need that certainty. Euratom deals with nuclear co-operation with the United States. It is ironic that although we are talking about coming out of Europe and trading with the United States, we need to be part of Euratom to get agreements to move fuels to the US, Japan, Canada and other countries. Renegotiating will take an awful long time.

Ideally, the Minister would retain the UK’s membership of Euratom even if we left the European Union. If the Government proceed to give notice to withdraw, we must have an agreement on transitional arrangements. We must also have sufficient time to negotiate and complete new arrangements with EU states and third countries such as the US, Japan and Canada. If in two years an agreement cannot be reached, the UK should remain a member. Our standing in the nuclear industry is at stake, as are jobs and our reputation as a major country in nuclear research. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.

[Mr David Jones]

I have listened to a large number of very important contributions this afternoon from right hon. and hon. Members, and a large number of proposals have been considered. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I say that I prefer—

English Votes for English Laws and North Wales

Debate between David Jones and Albert Owen

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen]

I appreciate that intervention from a fellow islander. I was in Jersey yesterday, watching the Island games and cheering Isle of Wight on. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. We need a proper convention to consider these issues, because some of the arguments have not been dealt with in great detail in this House. The knee-jerk reaction of having English laws and English votes is not the answer; it is a sticking plaster and it will cause more problems than it will create solutions.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman acknowledging that the devolution settlement established in 1999—the creature of the Labour party, of course—is grievously flawed?

[Albert Owen]

The call for devolution in the ’70s was so strong that there had to be a reaction to it from the UK Parliament. I mentioned in my opening remarks that there should have been a more balanced version, with more English devolution, at the time it was introduced. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have supported that, because he is now a pragmatist and in favour of the current constitutional settlement.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but did not the people of the north-east reject devolution to the English regions when it was put to them?

[Albert Owen]

Obviously, that happened. If it had been done at the same time as the London Mayor, and perhaps at the same time as another region, perhaps others would have clamoured for it later. I accept that that was an error. However, the right hon. Gentleman’s party, which opposed devolution at that time, has now wholly embraced it, so the Labour party has done his party a favour, moving it forward in many ways. The right hon. Gentleman, a pragmatic Secretary of State who wanted more devolution for Wales and for the rest of the UK, is evidence of that. I welcome the fact that many Conservative Members of Parliament have taken this journey, but I want the direction of the journey to be clear in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Lady was a North Wales Member of the Assembly. My criticism is not just about the institution or the Government in Cardiff Bay. North Wales Assembly Members should be making a stronger case for North Wales. That is what I am doing today, as a North Wales MP. I will argue, when I have a chance to develop my argument without interventions, that there needs to be representation from North Wales MPs in this debate.

The debate has gone a bit sterile post-Scottish referendum, partly because of the Prime Minister’s reaction on the morning after the referendum result, which I very much welcomed. Instead of being statesmanlike and trying to strengthen the Union after the referendum result, he chose to talk about one part of the UK: England. The Union is not strengthened by isolating and talking about one part of it. Unionism must be about the whole UK. That is why I am arguing for North Wales MPs having a strong voice and being equal in this UK Parliament. We are all elected under the same franchise and we should be allowed to debate and vote on the same rules and regulations that are before this House, and there should be no exemption. No Parliament will succeed if it has two tiers of representative. We all have the same mandate and we are here to represent our constituents and the UK, but we will not be able to do that if we go down the avenue proposed by the Conservatives. That is the gist of my argument. I will put some detail on it in the next seven or eight minutes, after which I will sit down and allow other hon. Members to contribute.

Devolution has to be more than just a theory: it has to be practical and real because it concerns services, such as health and transport, which are often provided east-west in the UK. Most decisions on transport that affect Wales are made here in the Department for Transport. The debacle over the west coast main line affects not just my constituents, but the whole of North Wales and the whole of England. It is an interconnector and a corridor between Ireland and London, going through North Wales. It would be crazy for North Wales MPs not to have a say or not to be able to question the Secretary of State when big decisions go wrong, such as when millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is squandered by errors in the franchise process. That affects my constituency and services to my constituents. I travel on that train every week, and I know the composition of its passengers: they are from North-West Wales, other parts of North Wales and England. We need to have a voice in this House when we debate such issues, so that we can express our views and vote on big decisions that affect our constituents.

[Mr David Jones]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very kind in giving way. While I agree with the thrust of his argument, is he not choosing a rather bad example, because railway services are not a devolved issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I commend the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing an important and timely debate. It is timely, of course, because we are considering a lot of constitutional legislation, including the Scotland Bill, which continues in Committee today, and the proposed procedural changes to the rules of the House.

I agree with most of the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. That said, the issue of fairness must also be considered. It cannot be fair that a Member of Parliament for a part of the country in which powers are totally devolved should have a vote—possibly a determinative vote—on matters that do not affect either that Member or their constituents. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who illustrated the cross-border problems quite nicely. He neatly demonstrated the frustration of English Members that they often have no voice in any democratic assembly on issues concerning them and their constituents. That cannot be right.

The problem is that the devolution settlement imposed in 1999 is frankly not fit for purpose. It does not work; it is a lash-up and it needs to be revisited. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn talked about a constitutional convention, but the fact that he had to do so shows that he also recognises that what was put in place by the Blair Government back in 1999 is not fit for purpose and ill serves the people of both England and Wales.

[Albert Owen]

I will be brief, as I have already spoken at some length. As Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Gentleman’s answer to the problem was more devolution. He just added to the devolution settlement. We need a constitutional convention so that we can pause to consider and reflect on the matter at a UK level.

[Mr Jones]

I certainly believed in more devolution of taxing powers and was a firm advocate of that. The hon. Gentleman makes a different point, which I will focus on in the time remaining.

What we have in North Wales, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is a wholly different state of affairs from that which prevails in South Wales. The Welsh devolution settlement was put in place by South Wales politicians who did not really understand North Wales, did not understand that North Wales is part of the north-west economic region, did not understand the need of North Wales patients to access medical treatment in the north-west of England and did not understand the historical and cultural ties that bind the people of the north-west of England and North Wales.

I will support the procedural changes to the rules of the House provided that they fully reflect the interests of the people of North Wales and their representatives. I will join the hon. Member for Ynys Môn in pressing for that when the matter is considered by the House. More importantly, the Wales Bill to be introduced later in this Parliament presents an opportunity to address the whole issue of devolution and to sort out the problems that were identified by the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Ynys Môn. We should take the opportunity to try to improve a devolution settlement that is unfit for purpose.