Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will be debated tomorrow. I hope that he will support that Bill because of the certainty and security it provides by closing loopholes and ensuring that we have appropriate frameworks in place. Those in themselves present the issue of a cliff edge that he mentioned.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Since the referendum result, we have seen record inward investment in Wales, record levels of employment and a proposal to scrap the Severn bridge tolls. Does that not show that under the Conservative Government the future for Wales is very good indeed?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is a passionate campaigner for not only the UK and Wales, but the benefits of leaving the European Union. We want a stronger, fairer, more united and outward-looking Union, and Members on both sides of this House have a role to play in that.

Welsh Affairs

David T C Davies Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Members will be aware of the plan by the Heads of the Valleys Development Company, led by Mr Michael Carrick, to build a racetrack at Ebbw Vale. Mr Carrick persuaded the Welsh Government to put £9 million into his company, Heads of the Valleys, in order to develop this, but has so far been unable to get the private sector to back the scheme without an assurance from the Welsh Government that they will provide over £200 million as a loan guarantee.

Mr Carrick claims to be an expert in building infrastructure. He has been involved in attempts to set up infrastructure projects in the Shetland islands and the Port of Ardersier in Scotland, as well two biomass projects in Africa and another in Ireland, and a river barrage scheme at Fleetwood. None of these projects has been successful. I have spoken to many involved who say that they feel let down and misled, and in more than one case that they are owed money. I could give some examples, but do not have the time. One that has been in the press, however, involved Mr Bob Long from Fleetwood, who tried to set up a river barrage. Mr Carrick told him that he had the funds available to develop the project, but the money never arrived, and Mr Long claims the project has been almost ruined as a result.

Aventa’s website, which Members can look at if they wish to, implies that it is responsible for managing a fund worth £350 million to build UK infrastructure, but Companies House records suggest that it has just £500 in the bank. However, with his £9 million of public money, Mr Carrick decided to buy a specialist motorcycle company based in Buckinghamshire. It was shown in the records as a dormant company until August 2012, after which it sprang into life. By August 2013, it was showing liabilities of £350,000. The losses grew, but when I met Mr Carrick in July last year, he told me that he would soon turn it around, that it would be an anchor business for his site and that it would lead to a Welsh rider winning a Welsh grand prix. A few months later, it was in administration, owing more than £500,000. If Mr Carrick cannot make a success of a small company turning over a few hundred thousand pounds, should the taxpayer be backing him in a venture worth several hundred million?

Mr Carrick’s publicly funded company has also bought the rights to hold the MotoGP championships at Silverstone, but so far he has made a loss on that of around £1 million. Many companies, including some local ones, have done work for the project but have not been paid—they have all done it at risk—but luckily, one supplier has been paid in full, again out of public funds. Mr Carrick decided to appoint a financial consultant to give advice to the scheme, and the company he appointed was Aventa, a company that he 100% owns and controls. In effect, he paid himself nearly £l million of public money to give himself advice. Civil servants in the Welsh Assembly raised concerns about this but were overruled. I have some written material to back all this up, by the way; I have the invoices. Among other things, Aventa spent £35,000 on landscape gardening. Those invoices were made out to the Heads of the Valleys Development Company, but Mr Carrick says that they were paid by Aventa. He also spent thousands of pounds on political events for the Labour party and, he tells me, for the Conservative party, although I do not have those invoices.

When I raised my concerns with Mr Carrick, he told me that he was entitled to spend Aventa money as he pleased and that it had sources of income other than the public money from the Heads of the Valleys Development Company. I asked for examples and he cited GE. I asked him whether he meant General Electric, and he said yes. I then contacted General Electric, which told me that he had asked for money but had not had any from the company. At the same meeting, one of Mr Carrick’s associates told me that BMW was planning to build a BMW world theme park at the site. I checked with BMW, which told me that that was absolutely ludicrous and that it had no plans to do so. Again, I have all this in writing.

Mr Carrick’s lawyers, who are in touch with me frequently, claimed that I had made all this up, but, fortunately for all concerned, I have a high-quality recording of the meeting, and they have now had to accept that all those comments were indeed made. I can share the transcript of the meeting with anyone who is interested, although I cannot share the recording without Mr Carrick’s permission, which he does not seem very willing to give. I asked him about the business plan, and I was told that he would be able to rent out the race track for between £18,000 and £35,000 a day. Industry experts tell me that that is absolutely ludicrous. But even if he did manage to do that, he would be pulling in revenue of only about £13 million a year on a project that is going to cost £430 million to build. I am intrigued as to why the project keeps increasing in cost, from £200 million in 2011 to £250 million in 2012 and to £380 million when I met Mr Carrick in July. Seven months later, it has risen again to £430 million.

I have two other documents of interest. The first is a quote from a construction company, FC, for £180 million for building the track—a project we are told is worth £430 million. Even with a few hotels chucked in, that would take a bit of explaining. The second is a business plan showing a developer’s profit of £13 million.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for his investigation into this episode. What broader lessons does he think should be drawn from this about Welsh Government Ministers’ attitudes towards the use of public money in the name of economic development?

[David T. C. Davies]

The first lesson is that nobody should be able to make £13 million on a project before it has even been built. Secondly, this whole thing is an outrage. People are being sold a pipe dream. Politicians who support it are being taken out for lunch, and those who ask difficult questions are being threatened with legal action by a group of expensive City lawyers. Some £9 million of taxpayers’ money has been wasted. The only infrastructure we have seen so far has been the £35,000-worth of work done to Mr Carrick’s mansion in Grantchester, and the only sports car in evidence is the Aston Martin that he drives around in. It is time to pull this project.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Wales Audit Office is looking into the affairs of that company? Has he contributed his valuable information to the WAO?

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I have contributed quite a bit to the Wales Audit Office, and I am looking forward with great anticipation to the result. It is time to pull the plug on this scheme. If the Welsh Government want to put £200 million of our money at risk, there are better ways of doing it and better people to be doing it with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

In the spirit of brotherly and sisterly love that characterises this debate, I will advance my main career task of adding to the glittering career of the Secretary of State for Wales. He had the good sense to marry into a family who live in my constituency, which shows that he is a man of ambition.

I urge the Secretary of State to challenge his Cabinet, who seem to use Wales as a kind of Aunt Sally for making comparisons. He could advance his career by promoting some of the great achievements of Wales, and particularly of the Welsh Government. He could start with the Welsh Government’s Bill that introduced presumed consent for organ donation, which has already saved lives and proven to be advantageous. There is a Bill to that effect before this House, and I urge him to persuade the Cabinet of the advantages of introducing the same system in England.

I want to ask the Secretary of State about one of the other great successes of the Welsh Assembly, which was buying Cardiff airport for the bargain price of £52 million. That was derided by some of his friends in Wales, but since the airport was bought it has paid more than £52 million in air passenger duty back to the Government. The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who is next to the Secretary of State, took a great deal of time in our debate on the Wales Bill and seemed to give more support to Bristol airport than to Cardiff airport. I say to him that Cardiff airport is another shining success.

In a Select Committee, I reminded the Secretary of State that he was born four years after Wales started paying double tax on the national road system and the Severn bridge tolls, and asked whether his ambition was to ensure that those tolls continued until he retired. That is the way that it is going. By next year, however, the bridge will be all paid for.

I asked the Secretary of State how the toll of £3.70 that he proposed at the time was 50% of £6.70. He and his officials went back to the Wales Office and recalculated, and the next figure I saw was £3. Recently, a question was asked here about how the £3 was calculated. The strange answer was that that was something equivalent to the Humber bridge. We are happy for it to be treated in the same way as the Humber bridge, where £150 million of debt was wiped off. That would give us 10 years at least. Now, the only justification for the tolls is that they are a cash cow, and the Government and the Treasury refuse to give them up.

When the Severn bridge was first opened, Harri Webb wrote a poem:

“Two lands at last connected

Across the waters wide,

And all the tolls collected

On the English side.”

If the ghost of Harri Webb is still about, he might write something along these lines:

“Now all the tolls are collected

The debt is paid in full

But Tory snake oil salesmen

Still rob us with their bull.”

The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) made several interesting observations, and I would like to know how they will be followed up.

[David T. C. Davies]

Fifty per cent. is better than nothing, and does the hon. Gentleman agree that Mr Webb might have written:

“The Secretary of State

We think no less of him

Because 50%

Is better than dim”—

as they say in Welsh?

[Paul Flynn]

There is a delightful picture, which I have produced with pride on my website, of the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales—a trio of snake oil salesmen—lined up against the background of the bridge, saying “Well, it used to be £6.70. Now, we’re going to make it £3.70.”; “No, we’re not—it’s £3”; and “We’ll charge you each way, so it’s £1.50”. These are the techniques of the fairground.

The charge should be nothing because we have already paid the bill. How many Members were in the House for the Severn Bridges Bill in 1992, when we were told by Wyn Roberts, “This is the end of it”? We have already paid £1 billion of public money. We pay our taxes for every road within the British Isles—we have to pay our share of that—and, in addition, we pay this extra tax to get into Wales. It is a barrier to Welsh life and it should go. I am looking forward to hearing how Ministers came up with the idea of charging £3. There is no justification for it. The largest element of it will actually go on collecting the tolls themselves. This is a totally unfair tax on Wales.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will announce, in under an hour’s time, that this is over and that he will now crusade on the issue and build himself up as the new symbolic or legendary figure of Welsh life, so that when he lays down his political role and joins the choir invisible he can discuss with Harri Webb his verses on the Severn bridge and contemplate the opportunities he has had in life, such as the ones I am sure he will take up after today.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate both that his constituency has experienced some significant falls in unemployment since 2010 and that after all that money has been spent those areas voted in the strongest numbers to leave the EU. The point I am making is that the current programme has not worked and has not fitted those communities. Exiting the EU presents an ideal opportunity to revisit this and look to see what we can do better for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and other communities in Wales in need.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wales voted clearly for Brexit and they do not need to be represented by the SNP or the Welsh Assembly Government who are ignoring their views, but will be pleased to have a Conservative Government and an excellent Secretary of State for Wales who will carry out their wishes?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments, but of course we have a close and constructive working relationship with the Welsh Government and all devolved Administrations because it is in our interests to get the strongest deal for the whole of the UK. After all, as my hon. Friend will recognise, the most important market for Welsh business is the UK market, and getting the best deal for the whole of the UK is in all our interests.

Leaving the EU: Wales

David T C Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Britain has been terrorised by clowns, and we now know that their ringleader is a peroxide blonde with a German name and a red nose masquerading as the Foreign Secretary. He promised a mixture of lower costs, market access and lower migration, but we are obviously going to get higher costs, which is why the deficit reduction plan has been torn up, no market access—it sounds like it will be a hard Brexit—and increasing migration, as ever. Boris said that we could have our EU cake and eat it, but Donald Tusk has said that all we will get is salt and vinegar.

The referendum took place immediately after the Welsh Assembly elections, so the Welsh people did not have time to contemplate all the ramifications of Brexit on their grants, and 16-year-olds and people living abroad were not allowed to vote. It is now coming home to us that we face the triple whammy that I mentioned earlier. Wales starts from a position of having something like 70% of UK GDP per head. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) said, 200,000 people who rely on EU trade—25,000 of them are in Swansea bay—face tariffs.

There is enormous uncertainty. We hear today that the promised electrification to Swansea may not proceed, and we do not know what is happening about the lagoon or the Swansea city deal. Tariffs are going up, and companies such as Nissan want compensation. It is like someone going to a shop and buying a mobile phone that they are told has a colour picture, but when they get home they find it is black and white. In other words, if the promises that were made were not a reasonable representation of the future—the falling pound, the loss of investment and the loss of jobs—the British and Welsh people deserve a referendum on the exit package before we trigger article 50. Article 50 should not be triggered until something like next October.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fall in the pound has been excellent for exporters?

[Geraint Davies]

I assume that the fall in the pound to a 30-year low was designed to make Polish workers better off when moving abroad. The weak pound is a nightmare that will generate huge inflation in Britain. People will not be able to go on holiday, except on the £14 visa. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, he should have said before the referendum, “We are fighting for a lower pound and less investment, and we are ripping up our deficit strategy.” In fact, the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams), who has now left the Chamber, seems to think that we should have £1 billion less, because we are wasting our money—so much for representing Wales. Last week when I asked the Minister in Question Time about the “body blow” of Brexit, he said simply that Swansea had voted for it, as if to say, “Well, it’s their own fault—like it or lump it.”

In reality, we need support where it is most necessary, and we need promises from the Minister to ensure that funding is sustained and that we still have the city deal, the lagoon and the electrification. We need a helping hand to succeed in difficult days. If possible, we should also have another crack at this with an exit package referendum, so that people can have a say on what they get and whether they want to go ahead. They have said that they want to go ahead in principle, but in practice is a hard Brexit what they wanted? No.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Lady raises an important question. Within a week of the Brexit referendum I met a number of business leaders in Cardiff and last week I met a number of business leaders in north Wales. I was struck by their pragmatism and approach—the positivity they were showing. One of the most positive quotes was that entrepreneurs “thrive on change.” They recognise that we are not turning our backs on Europe, but opening up new markets across the globe.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that every single Government Minister who has spoken on this issue has expressed their desire to ensure spending remains at exactly the same levels in Wales as it always has done, and that that shows this Government’s commitment to the people of Wales?

Wales Bill

David T C Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I begin by genuinely welcoming the two new members of the Opposition Front-Bench team. One, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), I have not known for that long, but she has always shown her willingness to work in a non-partisan way when that is called for. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and I go back many decades. Although we have never really agreed, I think it is wonderful that he has found his way on to the Front Bench. I suspect it will take me even longer than him to get there, but you never know. We might even see a nonagenarian on the Front Bench one of these days, and I will put myself up if I am still here.

I will address the thrust of the Plaid Cymru amendments—most importantly, amendment 21 and the general view that Plaid Cymru Members want to underline the absolute permanence of the National Assembly for Wales within the British constitution. I speak as someone who campaigned against the Welsh Assembly—I was one of the leaders of the campaign against it, back in 1997—and voted against it. Subsequently, there was a discussion among those of us in the no campaign about what we should do next. After all, the Assembly had gone through on a turnout of only 50%, with a majority of less than 1%. About 25%—just one in four—of the Welsh public had voted for a National Assembly of Wales. There were discussions about whether we should demand a rerun, or take to the streets and protest that such an enormous constitutional change was taking place with the support of just one in four of the population. We discussed all those things and the anger that we felt about the plan for the Assembly going ahead.

We decided in the end that we needed to show some humility. It was not a case of whether we were right or wrong but of listening to the will of the Welsh public. Subsequently there was a referendum a few years later, when I campaigned against further powers for the Welsh Assembly. I do not like to say that I was wrong—no politician ever does—but I accept fully that I was on the losing side and that, once again, the Welsh public had spoken and made clear their support for a Welsh Assembly. I therefore wish to say that, as someone who was probably more anti the Welsh Assembly than anyone else in this Chamber—well, I would have said that a few years ago but now I am not so sure—I totally and utterly accept that the Welsh Assembly is there, and there to stay.

Despite my constitutional misgivings about the Assembly, and the fact that I predicted at the time that it would always be seeking more powers every couple of years, I have always thought that were obvious advantages to having a body that could take some control over matters that affect the people coming to see us in our surgeries. People always want to talk about health services and the NHS, for example, and I have always thought it easier to get hold of a Minister in the Welsh Assembly than Ministers in Parliament, probably because they do not have quite as much to do. Members of the Welsh Assembly are generally able to be in their constituencies more often than Members of Parliament, for obvious logistical reasons. There were always some advantages to be had; my concern was that we had left the English question unanswered, although we are starting to address that now.

I want to make it clear that I believe that it would be constitutionally outrageous for any party to come along and try to get rid of the Welsh Assembly. I certainly would not support that. I do not for a second think it is realistic to hold another referendum on the principle of whether we have a Welsh Assembly. I was on the losing side of that argument. Whether I was right or wrong is immaterial; I fought that case, I lost, and the people of Wales have spoken.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend’s comments, and one always listens to every word he says. Does he regret that there was no mechanism in the first Wales Bill to allow another look at whether the Assembly should exist?

[David T. C. Davies]

There was no mechanism but there was a second referendum a few years later. I forget the percentages, but a much clearer level of support was expressed for the Welsh Assembly in that referendum. Realistically, now, by the time of the next election there will be people who have lived their entire lives with a Welsh Assembly. I do not think that it is a greatly loved institution, but it is not greatly hated, either. It is just accepted, as part of the furniture.

The only point I would make to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) is this. Regardless of whether her amendment 21 gets the support of the Committee today, I think it is absolutely inconceivable that there will ever be any attempt to get rid of the Welsh Assembly. It is our duty to work with it and to remember what the Welsh public have said to us twice through referendums. I hope that we will all take the same view about all referendums in which the Welsh public have expressed their voice.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I will speak in favour of amendments 9, 7 and 10. It is always a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to the Front Bench. He follows in a fine tradition of octogenarians serving in the Labour Front-Bench team. The one who sprang to my mind was Lord Addison, who left the Attlee Government in 1951 at the age of 82. I am sure that in my hon. Friend we have a fine 21st century successor to Lord Addison. When I first came to this House, I thoroughly enjoyed reading my hon. Friend’s book “How to be an MP”; I look forward to the sequel, “How to be a Front Bencher”.

I will speak on the issue of a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about the wording of amendment 5. When the Wales Bill still contained the vast number of necessity tests that it did, there was a more powerful argument for a separate legal jurisdiction, but now that the necessity tests have been all but removed, save in two very specific circumstances, I do not think that any urgency for that remains. That allows us the chance to move forward far more pragmatically.

We have to be absolutely clear about the consequences of having a separate legal jurisdiction. I should say that prior to coming to this House I spent 11 years as a practising barrister in Cardiff and am still a door tenant, though non-practising, at Civitas Law. I have looked at situations where the permission of the court would be required to serve outside the jurisdiction—in other words, an additional barrier to access to justice would exist—if there was a separate legal jurisdiction. The list includes interim remedies, contracts, claims in tort, enforcement, claims about property within jurisdiction, trusts, claims by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, claim for costs order in favour of, or against, third parties, admiralty claims, claims under various enactments, and claims for breach of confidence or misuse of private information. All those areas would require permission to serve outside the jurisdiction. That may have been rather a legal list, but let us think of its practical consequences. For example, let us suppose a constituent from Torfaen goes to Bristol and falls over. They will be put in a complicated legal position.

Health is also a cross-border issue. If someone who lives in Wales crosses the border for treatment, there will be complications in cases of medical negligence. When people from Wales drive to London on the M4 and if they have an accident on the other side of the Severn bridge, that will have suddenly taken place in a different jurisdiction. If someone buys a washing machine or some other product from England, consumer protection law will cause complications for someone in Wales who is seeking a remedy for a problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman is a passionate speaker and a strong advocate for his position. In a debate in Westminster Hall this morning, however, I warned of the dangers of creating history as we want to believe it to happen. I am not as yet convinced that there is enough evidence to suggest that Scotland is imminently about to leave the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I am not convinced. There was a referendum two years ago that provided a fairly clear result. I think it would therefore be inappropriate to legislate on the basis of the wish list of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—much as I enjoy that wish list and the passion with which it is articulated.

The Government are fully committed to maintaining the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. It has served Wales very well. It is also our firm view that it is the most effective, efficient and consistent way to deliver justice. The issues raised by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) highlighted some of the complexities that would be created if we moved away from that single jurisdiction at this point in time. The vast majority of law is not devolved, so there is no justification for a separate jurisdiction that would create significant upheaval and huge costs. It is worth highlighting that cost issues cannot be swept under the carpet. There would be a cost implication with very little benefit. I wonder whether Plaid Cymru Members have carried out a cost-benefit assessment to weigh up the benefits and the costs that would be incurred.

Amendment 5 envisages separate legal and court jurisdictions, administered by a common judiciary and court staff. It is designed to provide clarity, but I am not sure that it would. I think it would create more confusion, having the opposite effect—a point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). The same people would be charged with administering two separate legal regimes where there is currently a commonality of law and procedure. This would have downstream consequences and it would impact on how the legal system works. It is difficult to justify such an impact on the basis of the current body of Welsh law.

We have heard the argument that the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland is simpler because they have separate legal jurisdictions. I expected to hear that argument, but it ignores the historical reality that there has been—there always has been for that matter—a separate Scottish legal jurisdiction. I have engaged previously with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr on the laws of Hywel Dda, who is rightly remembered for the legal system he put in place.

[David T. C. Davies]

Does the Minister also accept that Hywel Dda was very well known for the importance he placed on working with the English Government at the time, particularly with Edward the Elder and Athelstan? Is there not a great lesson for all of us here in terms of co-operation with the Welsh Assembly?

[Guto Bebb]

I appreciate that there are quite a few experts on Hywel Dda in this place. It is certainly the case that he took a co-operative approach. As I said previously in a debate with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Hywel Dda was perhaps very good in some respects, but he allowed the murder of his brother-in-law for his own personal gain in the kingdom. So perhaps he was not perfect.

Let me return to the serious issue of the separate legal entity. I think that, for all the talk of Hywel Dda, it would be a mistake to ignore the historical context. We are where we are. We legislate not in terms of what we would like to see, but in terms of what is practical and what is right at this point in time, and I think that the Bill has struck the right balance in that respect.

We recognise the validity of some of the points that were raised during pre-legislative scrutiny. Wales has a distinctive legal identity. It has two legislatures, and a growing body of law made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers. The Bill recognises that, and there is clearly a need to ensure that it does so in the context of maintaining the single jurisdiction of England and Wales. Our position is clear: we are recognising reality in the context of a system that currently works very well for Wales and the United Kingdom.

Amendments 7 and 9 call for the Lord Chancellor and Welsh Ministers to keep under review the functioning of the justice system in relation to Wales, including the question of whether the single legal jurisdiction should be separated into a jurisdiction for Wales and a jurisdiction for England. The case for that was argued by the hon. Members for Torfaen and for Newport West.

This is an important issue, and it should be considered carefully. The St David’s day process considered the position for and against devolving justice, and ultimately found no consensus in favour of implementing the Silk commission’s recommendation. As I have said, the Government firmly believe that the most effective, efficient and consistent way to administer justice is under a single legal jurisdiction.

Despite the devolution of powers to Wales, under this Bill and the Government of Wales Acts before it, and despite the increasing amount of legislation made by the Assembly, the vast majority of laws apply equally across England and Wales, and will continue to do so. The Government therefore pledged to continue to reserve justice and policing in their election manifesto, as I mentioned earlier. However, I agree with the principle that the functioning of the justice system must be kept under review, especially given the continuing divergence in law to which I have referred.

It is for that very reason that my right hon. Friends the Justice Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales have established a working group to consider the administrative changes needed to meet the administrative and operational demands of diverging legislation in a Welsh context. The group will represent the key areas affected by the changing legislative Welsh landscape, and will consider a range of circumstances affecting the operation of justice in Wales. I can tell the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who raised the point in his speech, that the Welsh Government have been invited to be represented on the group, but the invitation was issued to officials in that Government, so there should be no condemnation of any political forces—any Ministers—in the Assembly. We expect a positive response to the invitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I wish to speak on clause 16 and the referendum on income tax powers. I preface my remarks by saying that I have always been an instinctive pro-devolutionist. I worked in the Assembly when it first began and I supported its establishment. I would go further than some aspects of the Bill in devolving powers and giving responsibilities to the Welsh Government. I support, as the First Minister has, a federal UK. I would like a constitutional convention and a written constitution that properly settles the duties and responsibilities of the respective Administrations across these islands. This is even more crucial in the aftermath of the EU referendum. I genuinely fear for the future of the UK at the moment. I have always considered myself a proud Welshman, but also proudly British and proudly European. I will continue to do so, but we have unleashed a whole series of very difficult questions in the aftermath of the vote that make our deliberations on the Bill all the more important.

[David T. C. Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the citizens of Switzerland and Norway are Europeans and may be proud to be European? They are just as European as anyone else in Europe, and he would be just as European as a Norwegian or a Swiss person is after Brexit takes place.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not going to be taken down that rabbit hole. I want to concentrate on the details of the Bill. I make my point because, despite having those views and pro-devolutionary instincts in supporting the most of the Bill—as I said, I am even willing to go further—I have also always believed in applying two tests to proposals put before us.

First, whatever is proposed must deliver better outcomes for the people of Wales. It is absolutely crucial that we look at this in the context of our unique history. Our history is not the same as that of Scotland, our legal history is not the same as that of Scotland, and the nature of our polity and development is not the same as that of Scotland. There are distinct and unique things about Wales that we should consider that do not apply to Scotland. We always have to ask: is this the right solution? I apply that particularly to issues such as policing, the justice system and criminal jurisdiction. I am not saying that they should not be looked at in the future, but I believe in a practical test of whether they will deliver better outcomes. It is not just about sticking a dragon on something and saying it will be done better; this has to be approached in a very cold and hard-headed way.

Secondly, I have always believed in the consent of the Welsh people when making major constitutional change. I support very much the intent of amendment 11, which I will support if it is pressed to a Division. We have considered the fiscal framework for Wales before moving forward with any devolution of income tax powers. There is a fundamental principle at stake here. Clause 16 would remove the requirement for a referendum. We have had two referendums in this country, one in Wales and one in Scotland. In Scotland, the question related to the devolution of income tax powers. It was the second question in the Scottish referendum of 1997 and it passed by 63.48%. The Scottish people were asked that question and voted for it separately from the question on whether there should be a Scottish Parliament. In Wales, we had a referendum on 3 March 2011 on a much lesser question, which was whether the Assembly should be able to make laws on the areas for which it already has responsibility. I did not think we needed that referendum at all. It was obvious that Wales should have had primary law making powers—it should have had them from the beginning. I always thought it absurd, sitting there in the early days of the Assembly discussing odd details of secondary legislation, that we did not have that primary law making power, so I am glad we have moved in that direction in terms of the Assembly’s core competences.

Whether or not people agree with devolving income tax powers, the question is a very fundamental one that changes the nature of the settlement for the Assembly and the Welsh Government. The question should be put to the Welsh people. I think it would pass in the current context, despite what some people say. Many in Wales would want to see it pass, and it should be put to them. It is a matter of precedent: we have had the two previous referendums, but we are not getting one on this question. I cannot understand why. We are not giving the Welsh people a voice. Whatever side people were on in the referendum campaign, it was crucial that the British had their say on such a fundamental decision.

I think that clause 16 is a mistake, but I will support our amendment 11, which goes fundamentally to the question of getting a fair fiscal settlement for Wales.

Wales Bill

David T C Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I begin by thanking all the members of the Welsh Affairs Committee who took part in the pre-legislative scrutiny. When the Select Committee was formed after the last Parliament, I wooed Members in all parts of the House to encourage them to join the Select Committee, telling them tales of all the pertinent and interesting things that we had done in the previous Parliament: considering broadband, the Severn bridge, S4C and the Welsh language, and even visiting the Welsh speakers of Patagonia in Argentina. I think some of them may have been a bit taken aback when we spent the first year or so just doing pre-legislative scrutiny of the government of Wales Bill, with an endless series of academics and legal experts coming in and out to talk to us about legislative consent orders and the like, but everyone persevered, and I am grateful to them for that. I would like to think that we worked in a completely non-partisan fashion, and we offered a number of recommendations, which the Government have taken forward, and I will come to those in a moment.

I am a former Member of the Welsh Assembly, but I actually opposed it in the first instance. I was very much involved in the 1998 referendum campaign, when I often heard the argument that laws that affect our nation should be passed by people who are based in our nation and elected by the people of our nation. I thought that that was quite a powerful argument at the time, and it is one that Government Front Benchers and Opposition Members might want to think about at the moment, because that principle that was certainly accepted then.

I and others had genuine concerns about the Welsh Assembly. One of my concerns was that, having got the Assembly, we would have a constant drive to give it extra powers, and that does seem to be what has played out over the past 17 or 18 years. My concern was that that could undermine the Union of the United Kingdom, and I therefore supported English votes for English laws because there has to be some answer to the English question. Opposition Members may not agree, but if they do not, it is for them to come up with another answer to the English question. Asymmetric devolution, where we give more and more powers—not always even the same powers—to different legislative bodies around the United Kingdom while ignoring the largest constituent part, will surely not create stability. That was one answer to the question, and the other was to come up, finally, with a lasting solution that will keep us on an even track for years, which is what the Government have attempted to do.

When I have been into primary schools and I have been asked about the issue, I have tried to explain it thus—this is a fairly simple analogy, perhaps, but I like such analogies. At the moment, the Assembly is a bit like a legislative park: it has a slide and swings, and it is quite well maintained in its own way, but there is no fence around it. What has happened is that Members of the Welsh Assembly have wandered out of the park into slightly dangerous areas—areas inhabited by other people—while other people have perhaps even trespassed on their park. Ministers have therefore come forward with what is almost a legislative version of Alton Towers: an enormous theme park with all sorts of exciting things for Members of the Welsh Assembly to deal with, such as taxis, buses and sewage, but with a great big fence to prevent them from getting out and perhaps encroaching on other areas, while preventing other people from encroaching on their area. I therefore welcome the Bill as a move towards stability.

Let me quickly go through a couple of the Committee’s recommendations. Obviously it is important to work with the Welsh Assembly to come up with a deal that everyone can live with. Constitutionally speaking, if there were a majority in the House of Commons, we could do practically anything we wanted, but I think all of us accept that, with a Government from one party here and a Government from a different party in the Welsh Assembly, it would be foolish to push something on the Assembly that it clearly did not want—that might be possible constitutionally, but it would be a non-starter politically. I am glad that my colleagues accept that and that talks are ongoing.

I am glad the Government have removed the necessity test. I got a strong feeling from talking to legal experts that it just would not work in its proposed form. At the same time, however, it is important that the Welsh Assembly is unable to change criminal or private law in a way that would affect non-devolved areas or people living outside Wales, in England, so we must be mindful of that in all cases. For example, the Welsh Affairs Committee held a public meeting in Chepstow yesterday to discuss the Severn bridge, which is one of the areas that is being retained—not least, perhaps, because three of the four ends are in England. A resident of Gloucester made the point that if it were handed over to the Welsh Assembly, how would people living on the English side of the border who use it every day be able to raise concerns about delays, tolling or pre-payment systems? They would have no MP who could take up those issues for them, despite the fact that they would affect almost as many people in England as in Wales. Those principles are important.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech carefully. I commend to him the work of the all-party group on Mersey Dee North Wales, which is addressing precisely the issue that he raises. It works with Members on both sides of the border to deal with practical issues that affect all our constituents every day. We have the capability to do these things if we work together.

[David T. C. Davies]

I had to think hard about this, but I think it was the hon. Gentleman himself who, during the discussion of English votes for English laws, raised the concern that giving England the power to decide over NHS matters would affect his constituents who use the NHS in England. He felt that it was therefore wrong that English MPs should have the last word on that matter, and I would reflect that back to him. Whenever we hand things over to devolved systems, people living on the other side of the border who use whatever has been devolved can lose out, and that was the point I was making about the Severn bridge. However, I commend the all-party group of which he is a member, and I am sure it is doing everything it can to resolve these issues.

Let me turn to some of the other recommendations. The tax issue is obviously tricky. I am in favour in principle of having a referendum before tax-varying powers are devolved to the Welsh Assembly or, rather, tax-raising powers—let us be honest: Governments rarely vary taxes downwards. The issue merits further exploration throughout the Bill’s passage. Obviously, I will not vote against Second Reading, but I might discuss this issue further with Ministers. I am conflicted, and I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) because I suspect that the last thing anyone will want at the moment is another referendum on anything. I would not like to go back to my wife, Mrs Davies, and tell her that, having finished this referendum, we are about to start another one and I am going to throw myself headlong into it. I appreciate that that is rather a personal point of view, but I suspect that many people across Wales feel exactly the same way and really would not welcome a referendum. Surely, however, a way must be found to make sure that the Welsh Assembly is unable to go ahead with such powers unless full account is taken of what the public think.

[Chris Davies]

As someone whom my hon. Friend cajoled into becoming a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee under his chairmanship, and as someone who spent nearly 12 months scrutinising the draft Wales Bill, may I ask him whether he is as disappointed as I am that we could not scrutinise the withdrawal of the referendum during those many hours and months of our consideration?

[David T. C. Davies]

This certainly came through rather late in the day, and I think we made it clear in our report that we were disappointed that we did not have enough time to scrutinise the issue, but I suppose that it is now done with. I am here not to defend the Government but to scrutinise them, and I am very happy to do so.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the evidence of the momentum of Welsh opinion is enough for us to forgo the joys of another referendum? Only 11% were in favour of Welsh devolution in 1979, but 64% were in 2011. Is that not evidence enough that the public will certainly favour the development and growth of the Welsh Assembly’s powers?

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

I have to admit that it is certainly evidence that the public have accepted the Welsh Assembly and, therefore, that it is pointless for even arch-devo-sceptics such as me to try to resurrect that particular battle—I have no intention of doing so. There will be people taking part in the next election who were born under the Welsh Assembly. While the hon. Gentleman and I can remember a time before the Welsh Assembly, that does not exist for some people, although he can go back a bit further than I can. I canvassed against the hon. Gentleman in 1983. He used to come into my school to try to brainwash me, but he never succeeded. We have moved on a long way. If he was trying to put me on the spot, yes, of course we have to accept that the Welsh Assembly is here for good, and that brings me back to the point about stability and trying to make this work.

I am pleased that one of the points that has been accepted was about ministerial consent, such that when the Welsh Assembly intends to legislate in a way that may affect England or have some impact on non-devolved areas, it will have to get permission from the Government, which I fully accept. As we have heard, there have been delays while this has been going on, with the Welsh Office blaming the Welsh Assembly for that and the Welsh Assembly blaming the Welsh Office—I have no idea who actually was to blame. Nevertheless, we recommended that if the Assembly applied to the Welsh Office for a consent and nothing was given within 60 days, the application should be nodded through on the basis that nobody had come up with an objection. Although that is not going into the Bill, it will, I believe, become part of the guidance—a convention, no less—so may I make a pitch for something? I have been here for a long time now and I have never had a convention named after me, but I think I am right in saying that this was my idea, so perhaps it could become the “Top Cat” convention.

I am glad that the Welsh Assembly will have powers to run its own elections. It would, if it wanted, be able to move out of the Senedd and to relocate anywhere in Wales—from Llanfihangel Tor-y-Mynydd, right down in the south-east of my own constituency, to Llanfair- pwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch in the north-east. Is not that wonderful? Assembly Members will have more powers than MEPs in Strasbourg, who cannot even decide whether to move to Brussels full-time. Ministers are giving them a really good deal—a really good legislative theme park to operate in.

While I do have concerns about the Bill, I will, in the words of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), give it 7.5 out of 10 and go along with it for the time being.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Congratulations to the Government on the improvements to what was an ugly draft Bill. We have before us a Bill that will be a genuine step forward in devolution.

I was taken by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who talked about Welsh people seeing themselves not as victims but as visionaries. Absolutely right—we can go forward on a confident note, but not by having referendums. The whole system of our democracy is in peril at the moment, partly because of the debasement of political discourse, which is the worst it has been for a couple of centuries. The worst example was in the referendum on the alternative vote. Here was an opportunity for an advance in the quality of our democracy, but it was not argued in that way. As I came in every morning at Vauxhall Cross, anti-AV campaigners were telling people that those who voted for AV were the sort of people who believed in seeing babies die in hospitals and our brave soldiers die in Afghanistan. That seemed a rather extraordinary argument, but it was the one put forward by those opposed to AV. It was based on the idea that AV would cost money—a tiny amount of money, really, because democracy is expensive—and that the first thing the Government would do would be to cut the protection of our soldiers in Afghanistan and the money provided to baby units in hospitals. It was an outrageous lie, but that is currently the quality of parliamentary debate.

[David T. C. Davies]

Would the hon. Gentleman therefore like to dissociate himself from suggestions that voting for independence from the European Union would lead to world war three and the collapse of western civilisation?

[Paul Flynn]

If the hon. Gentleman reads his local paper, he will find that I did precisely that the other day—it was next to a column by him, so I thought he might have had the grace to read my column, even if he did not read his. I thought it was rather better written, although I am slightly biased. I made the point in that article that I am embarrassed by the lies of people on my side, just as I treat with contempt the lies of people on the other side. That is the choice facing the public—whose lies they will vote for next week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said, let us not think of ourselves as victims—an obsession with a sense of victimhood is debilitating—but as people going forward as victors. That is how we should be going.

[David T. C. Davies]

Just to take the hon. Gentleman back a little and pick up one point, the Welsh language is being treated with a good measure of respect here. It is used regularly at the Welsh Affairs Committee. I would have liked it to be used in the last Welsh Grand Committee, and I am sure we will get there in the end, with cross-party support.

[Paul Flynn]

At business questions last week that was emphatically turned down by the Leader of the House. I hope that we can have a sensible discussion on that. It has been a huge success in the Welsh Assembly itself, where the language is used quite freely and in a very relaxed way. That is greatly to the benefit of Wales.

My main point about the Bill is about the level set in clause 36, which will act as a great restriction on Wales’s progress in using the greatest source of power that we have. It has long been neglected, yet it is like our North sea oil—it is that great cliff of water that comes up the Bristol channel twice a day. It is a source of immense power. It is entirely predictable, unlike wind or solar power—we know when it is going to happen—and it can be tapped in so many ways.

To our credit, we have already used that source in hydropower. But under the scheme in the Bill, even the hydropower station at Ffestiniog would be too big for the Welsh Assembly to authorise, at 360 MW. The one at Rheidol would have been fine, but Dinorwig would be too big at 1,800 MW. Those stations are a wonderful way of using that power. They are entirely demand responsive. The excess electricity can be used in off-peak hours to pump the water up to certain levels and then bring it back down again.

The greatest chance Wales has to produce power that is entirely non-carbon is through using the tides. Where would we be under the restriction in the Bill? The Swansea bay lagoon would be just within the 350 MW limit. But the Newport lagoons—both start at the River Usk, then one runs in the direction of Cardiff and one the other way—are both 1,800 MW. They have enormous potential. The resource is there, and the topography is perfect.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I would like to advise the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Erasmus programme was developed by a Port Talbot man some years ago. It has provided fantastic opportunities for students across Europe to share best practice and broaden the base of their knowledge. Of course, the European Investment Bank has also invested hugely in higher education and the new campus at Swansea University, worth more than £450 million, has benefited from such diversification.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will surely have seen yesterday’s Cardiff University report showing that Britain pays nearly £10 billion a year net to be part of the European Union. Does he agree that, under the Barnett formula, that money could leave Wales £500 million better off if we vote leave on 23 June?

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend is of course failing to recognise that independent forecasters—whether the IMF, the OECD or the Governor of the Bank of England—have talked about the negative impact Brexit would have on the Welsh economy. A £2 billion reduction in the scale of the economy, costing 24,000 jobs, is a step we cannot afford to take.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman, like business groups, be it the Federation of Small Businesses, the chambers of commerce or the Institute of Directors, would welcome the halving of the tolls. We saw no action in that regard from the Labour party when it was in government. However, we have gone further than just halving the Severn tolls. A small goods vehicle, for example, will move from the current rate of £13.20 to less than £4 when the tolls are halved, because we are also removing the second-class toll.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

13. The announcement by this Conservative Government of the cut in tolls is hugely welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in the longer term the revenue generated from the tolls should not exceed the cost of maintaining the two Severn bridges?

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligent and persistent campaigning on the issue. I know that he was absolutely delighted when the Chancellor was able to respond to his and many other Conservative colleagues’ requests. Of course, a debt will remain on the tolls even when the bridges come back into public ownership in 2018 or thereabouts. That debt will still need to be serviced, as will the innovations on free-flowing traffic that we want to introduce.

Welsh Affairs

David T C Davies Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

I can confirm that, this morning, I enjoyed a meeting with the Secretary of State, at which we discussed the crisis in the Welsh steel industry, so he was certainly available for discussions then.

It is a great honour to open this debate today, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing a St David’s day debate. The debate offers us the opportunity to speak about the challenges and opportunities affecting Wales. I am sure that Members will wish to touch on a wide range of different matters. I want to open today’s debate by concentrating on what I believe are some of the most salient, political, cultural and economic matters facing our country and our people today.

This will be a momentous year for Wales. First, we are on course for a championship-deciding clash with England in the Six Nations. I remind the House that it is traditional for Wales to win the Six Nations after a World cup. Perhaps the most momentous sporting occasion will be when the rugby team’s round-ball counterparts make their debut in the European championships in France this summer. It has been 58 years since we have been at an international finals. That is far too long for a country that has produced footballing greats—such as Allchurch, Rush, Hughes and Giggs—to be absent from major footballing tournaments. “Together Stronger” was the mantra of the team and the supporters through qualification, and it is a philosophy that can be applied across many of the issues that I wish to speak about today.

When Bale, Ashley Williams and Ramsey are flying the flag for Wales in that contest, campaigners from this House and across Wales will be making the case for Wales and the whole of the UK to remain in the European Union. We will do it with special zeal. Wales is a net beneficiary of EU funding. Our membership of the European Union is vital to our economy, security and our place in the world. A Brexit would be a massive gamble for Wales, putting jobs, investment, trade and therefore the safety of our communities at risk. The very last thing that we need now is the instability that the possibility of secession from the EU inflicts on a country that already endures economic fragility and social disadvantage.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. Does he accept the Library figure that the UK makes a net payment of around £8 billion to £8.5 billion each year to the European Union, and that if that money were taken and Barnettised and 5% of it were handed over to Wales, Wales would become a net beneficiary from exiting the European Union?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am afraid that he is confusing the budget of the European Union with the British economy. The British economy benefits to the tune of £227 billion a year in the exports that it makes to the European Union, thanks to its membership of the single market. If we are looking for value for money, £9 billion to £227 billion looks like a pretty good deal to me.

More immediately, many share my concerns about the months between now and 23 June and ask whether it is realistic to expect rational decisions to be made around a Cabinet table that is beset by mutual loathing.

Hundreds of thousands of Welsh jobs are linked to EU membership, and that membership is our largest source of investment, bringing growth, quality employment and higher wages. Much of our global investment from outside the EU is made possible by the fact that, inside the EU, we provide a gateway to the single market. That is a major reason for international firms such as Tata Steel in my constituency to locate in Wales.

As Members will be aware, the Welsh steel industry finds itself in a precarious position and nowhere in Wales is that felt more acutely than in my constituency. The works in Port Talbot are the productive core of our local economy and community, so the announcement at the start of the year of 750 job losses was a bitter blow, which will be compounded when the impact starts to be felt through the supply chain and the wider local economy.

Although the steel crisis may be partly the result of global trends and events, what cannot be ignored is that the Government have been asleep at the wheel for the past five years. Far more could and should have been done to give the British steel industry a fighting chance. From the blatantly unfair and distortive dumping of Chinese steel to the incompetent and complacent management of public procurement, this Government have failed to give justified support or stimulus to steel.

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. May I draw his mind back to the evidence that we took from management and the unions about those terrible job losses? Both said that the European Union had delayed bringing in tariffs on Chinese rebar and had taken a very long time to agree the compensation package—for which the Government had to ask permission from the EU— in order to give back to companies such as Tata some of the money that had already been taken as a result of energy taxes.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Membership of the European Union is defined by how a country engages and how it works with partners in Brussels—both with the European Commission and the other member states. What we have is a Government who, in 2011, recognised that there should be an energy-intensive industries compensation package, but then failed to knock on the door in Brussels and make it happen. How can it be that it took five years to deliver that deal?

When it comes to the dumping of steel, the British Government are the ringleader of a set of member states that do not want to reform the anti-dumping rules—so we still have the lesser duty rule—and are cheerleaders for China, lobbying for it to have market economy status. I am afraid that we need to draw a line under this constant scapegoating of Brussels. The blame should be laid squarely at the doors of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street and the rest of the Cabinet. Unlike other member states, they have failed to engage in Brussels in a way that wins for British business.

The Government operate in a fog of laissez-faire ideology. They pray to the gods of the free market, and then they hope for the best. In reality, the market economy can function effectively only if it is regulated. Just as football requires the off-side rule to ensure fair competition, so our steel industry requires the right regulatory framework, so that it can trade in equitable conditions—on a level playing field. Instead, the Government’s blithe faith in the free market is driving them to lobby for China to be given market economy status, and to refuse to support the scrapping of the lesser duty rule.

I wish to state now, with utmost gravity, that if speedy action is not taken to prevent the dumping of Chinese steel, we will witness the beginning of the end of UK steel making. The Government know full well that this foundation industry is hanging by a thread. Neither free market dogma nor cosying up to Beijing should be allowed to impede their patriotic duty to emulate other EU countries and stand up for the men and women who are the backbone of the British economy.

The Minister for Enterprise and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills recently visited my constituency, and I hope they will return so that they can go to the homes of some of my constituents who have lost their jobs. I hope they will look those men, women and families in the eye and explain themselves—explain how they can claim publicly that they are supporting the steel industry, while fighting tooth and nail behind closed doors against the lifting of the lesser duty rule and for market economy status for China.

I hope those Ministers will explain how they can claim publicly that they are changing public procurement to maximise the use of British steel, while allowing the Ministry of Defence to build the latest flotilla of Royal Navy frigates with Swedish steel. I hope they will come to Aberavon and explain the breath-taking contrast between their words and their deeds, for the people of my constituency deserve an explanation.

I am certain that the British steel industry has a promising future if it is given the right support by Government. The men and women at the Port Talbot works make the finest steel that money can buy and they are breaking all production and efficiency records, but the industry requires a long-term industrial strategy based on a sustained, comprehensive approach to skills, investment, regulation, energy and industrial relations. That is why I am proud to co-chair a working group of the all-party parliamentary group on steel, which will produce a report, “Steel 2020”, on formulating a long-term industrial strategy for British and Welsh steel.

Our strategy for the future of the Welsh economy must not be limited to steel. We need a new industrial revolution grounded in the new economy of renewables and connected technology, a fourth industrial revolution such as the one that was spoken of at the recent meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos. I see Wales at the forefront of that revolution. The Swansea Bay tidal lagoon could transform the energy industry, but frustratingly, its future is under threat owing to the Government’s perpetual flip-flopping. A positive decision on the lagoon would not only put a much needed tick in the Government’s ever-diminishing green credentials, but deliver a massive boost to the local economy. By committing to sourcing as much steel as possible from the UK, it would significantly help the UK steel industry. That project needs and deserves rapid advance. The Government need to get off the fence, and fast.

The Government’s short-sightedness is undermining other forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar. These are burgeoning industries in my constituency, with hundreds of jobs at stake, but they are under threat because of the Government’s moves to cut price stabilisation mechanisms, such as the feed-in tariffs. The Government have been on a policy descent from “Hug a huskie” to, in the words of the Prime Minister, “Let’s cut the green crap”.