Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We have protected the health budget in England, but the Welsh Government have cut their health budget by 8%. That is, to be frank, disgraceful and unsupportable. I suggest to Opposition Members that, rather than being in denial, they should criticise their own colleagues in the Welsh Assembly for their dereliction of duty to patients in Wales.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

4. What discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales in the past six weeks on the implementation of the proposals of the Commission on Devolution in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

The Wales Bill, which I introduced in this House last week, implements most of the recommendations made by the Commission on Devolution in Wales in its first report. I had proposed to discuss the Bill and the commission’s second report with the First Minister on Monday but, sadly, the meeting was postponed.

[Mr Llwyd]

It is absolutely disgraceful that it has taken the Government one year to respond to the first recommendations of the Silk report. Why does the Secretary of State not get a grip now and bring in the second tranche of recommendations in the new Bill that he has introduced? We have been treading water in Parliament for the past few weeks. There is plenty of legislative time. If the will is there, let us get on with it.

[Mr Jones]

I am surprised to hear that criticism from the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows that we will implement the recommendations of part I of the Silk commission in this Parliament. So far as part II is concerned, he should surely recognise that the recommendations will require significant consideration. Where those recommendations do not require primary legislation, we will look at implementing them in this Parliament, but we clearly cannot guarantee to do that.

[Mr Llwyd]

May I ask about zero-hours contracts? Does the Secretary of State appreciate that they are exploitative, and no more so than in the care sector, which the Resolution Foundation has said is

“where their use is most entrenched and where their impact on vulnerable workers and care recipients is most worrying”?

Does he not agree that to hear Labour carping about that matter here and voting against an amendment to delete it in Wales is a bit unfortunate? Does it appear at all on his radar, or is he above all this?

[Mr Speaker]

I am listening with rapt attention to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am struggling to ascertain the connection between the important matter he has just raised and the subject matter of the question, which is about the Commission on Devolution in Wales.

[Mr Llwyd]

The zero-hours contract issue could have been devolved to Wales to deal with.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a nice try, and I am in a generous mood.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, exactly right. Wales has seen a larger fall in economic inactivity than any other part of the United Kingdom. We all welcome the fact that 57,000 fewer people are economically inactive in Wales, but that has come about only because of the responsible decisions made by the Government—decisions that were opposed by the Labour party.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I do not quite recognise that rosy picture of unemployment rates. Since 2011, long-term and youth unemployment in Wales has quadrupled. That is not something to celebrate. What are the Government doing to ensure that young people are able to find good jobs in Wales? Are the Government going to consider applying for part of the €6 billion European youth jobs guarantee fund, and if not, why not?

[Stephen Crabb]

Nobody is painting a rosy picture. There is still a long way to go and, in Wales in particular, there are still serious challenges to address. But neither are we in denial about the positive picture that is starting to emerge. That is something that we want all parts of Wales and people from all walks of life, including young people, to benefit from. That is one of the reasons that we are making it easier for businesses to hire young workers through the national insurance holiday for businesses.

[Mr Llwyd]

We have already heard about the importance of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector to Wales. One thing that would assist it is a further cut in business rates. Are the Government going to consider that, given that roughly 90% of employment in Wales is in the SME sector?

[Stephen Crabb]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that small and medium-sized businesses are the engines of job creation in Wales. They are the ones that are driving the fall in unemployment. Decisions on business rates have largely been devolved to the Welsh Government, and we are taking forward proposals to devolve them entirely, so that is really a discussion that he ought to be having with colleagues in Cardiff.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

That is ultimately a matter for the Welsh Government, but it is noteworthy that, whereas council taxpayers in England are benefiting from a council tax freeze, that is not happening in Wales. Perhaps that is something the Welsh Government should be attending to.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

May I first associate myself fully with the words of tribute to the late, greatly respected right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and to the late Lord Roberts of Conwy?

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that reform of the Barnett formula is still an issue about which we are all very concerned. We in Plaid Cymru have campaigned about it for more than 25 years. It is interesting that the Labour party is now in favour of reforming Barnett, which it did nothing about for 13 years. In fact, when it was in government, it denied the existence of the problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any views on that issue?

[Mr Jones]

It is generally recognised that the Barnett formula does not have an indefinite duration. However, it is the priority of this Government to ensure that the public finances are stabilised, and that is what we intend to do.

[Mr Llwyd]

Which does the right hon. Gentleman think is worse—the self-serving preconditions set by the Labour party to block further devolution, or the failure of his Government to propose the full tax-varying powers contained in the cross-party Silk commission recommendations?

[Mr Jones]

I would always be the first to condemn the self-serving nature of the Labour party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, I am happy to do that. My hon. Friend will recall that just over a year ago the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 amendment provisions dealing with stalking and with stalking leading to fear of violence and alarm and distress were introduced. Since that time new guidance has been brought forward dealing with the way in which such offences are to be identified and with harassment, and also specifically how they should be dealt with if they involve the social media. Some 438 cases have been prosecuted so far under the new law. That figure is not necessarily too low given that we are at a very early stage, but it is important that this should be driven forward so a joint protocol is being produced by the CPS and the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is due in spring 2014 and it will set out in more detail how both sides of the criminal justice service should perform.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Those of us who campaigned for the new law are disappointed in as much as we now have evidence of under-charging by the CPS using the old 1997 Act as it was, and also, regrettably, many Crown prosecutors have not been sufficiently trained to implement the new law. Will the Minister please have a word with the Director of Public Prosecutions and ensure this is put right, because otherwise we will be failing many thousands of people?

[The Solicitor-General]

May I start by paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his all-party group on their work in this area? These two new offences, which were introduced just over a year ago, are an important step forward. It is too early to say whether it is disappointing that the number of offences so far charged is 438 rather than a higher figure, because we want to see how this goes forward from here, but there is no lack of drive or push in trying to deal with these offences, which are horrific and require a very firm approach, and I think this joint protocol will certainly help. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss it with me, I will be more than happy to do so.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I regret the fact that I never had the privilege and honour of meeting Nelson Mandela personally although, as with everyone else in the Chamber, his life touched my and my constituents’ lives very deeply.

I knew about the awful phenomenon of apartheid when I was at school—we all knew about it vaguely—but it was not until I went to university in 1970 that I became truly aware of the depth of disgust for it. Together with opposition to the Vietnam war, it occupied me and many others in a Welsh university known as a hotbed of Welsh nationalism. However, we had outside interests, and those were two of them. Yes, I am proud that there is a Mandela building at Aberystwyth university.

There have been many fine tributes today. It is not my job to go through them, but they are all heartfelt and sincere. Something that occurs when someone of the stature of the late President Mandela passes away is a scramble for superlatives. Sometimes that is tiresome, because superlatives do not always fit. In this case, the superlatives all fit, because his life was beyond comparison so, by definition, superlatives apply. I believe, like many people in the Chamber and throughout Britain, Europe and the world, that he was the greatest statesman of the last century. To spend 27 years in prison, many of them in solitary confinement, with no contact with the outside world, and on release not to have any rancour, still less hatred or vengeance, is truly remarkable. Like the right hon. Members for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), I was in the audience in 1996 when the President addressed both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall. He made a memorable and moving speech, typically fitting for the occasion, honest and completely down to earth. In many ways, he showed humility and strength of character beyond reproach, and I will always remember that day.

We gather today to thank Nelson Mandela for the many sacrifices that he endured, for showing the way to reconciliation and peace, against massive and seemingly insurmountable odds. It has been said, and I believe it to be right—I referred to the use of superlatives—that he was a colossus of history. I believe that he will continue to inspire millions of people for many years to come, and rightly so. There have been many quotations today from many wonderful speeches that he made down the years. May I remind the Chamber that he also said that there will never be world peace without a resolution of the Palestinian conflict? Perhaps the greatest tribute that we can pay him is to redouble our efforts to achieve that in his glorious memory.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that SMEs are the backbone of the Welsh economy, and we are keen to do all we can to encourage them. That is why we have initiated the StartUp loans scheme, which has already lent about £50 million to more than 9,000 new businesses. With effect from this October, working with the Welsh Government, we have announced the scheme’s roll-out to Wales, so that any Welsh entrepreneur with a good idea can come forward and apply for a loan.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Secretary of State will know that SMEs in Dwyfor Meirionnydd are doing their best to thrive in the face of coalition austerity, as he visited the first ever Meirionnydd day the week before last. I thank him for attending it. However, the economic situation outside London is far different from down here, so why not make the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which is currently going through the House, apply everywhere outside London and south-east England, thereby mirroring a move in the Government’s emergency Budget of 2010?

[Mr Jones]

I did, indeed, enjoy my visit to the Meirionnydd day that the right hon. Gentleman held, and I was very impressed by the positive attitude of SMEs from his constituency. He will know that the national insurance contributions employment allowance will benefit 35,000 businesses across Wales by a total of £50 million, with 20,000 of those businesses being taken out employer national insurance contributions altogether, which I would have thought his constituents welcomed.

[Mr Llwyd]

Welsh exports were down by just under £1 billion over the past 12 months, which is the biggest fall in any UK nation or English region. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Chancellor to ensure that the Welsh producing economy, which is comprised mainly of SMEs, is not paying the price for a growing service and finance economy centred on London and the south-east?

[Mr Jones]

We are anxious to ensure that as many SMEs as possible export. That is a good reason for Welsh SMEs to utilise the services of UK Trade & Investment. UKTI has global reach and is available to every business, including those in Wales. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to encourage his constituents to seek the services it offers.

Commonwealth Meeting and the Philippines

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I accept that the Sri Lankan Government have set up some processes, including the ones to which he referred, but too many of them have been military-led inquiries—basically, private inquiries into events at the end of the war—rather than a proper, independent inquiry, which is what needs to be held.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I have to confess that I thought it unwise to go to Sri Lanka, but having heard the Prime Minister’s statement and what he now plans to do I am changing my mind—not a bad thing, possibly. As someone who has raised the Tamil question many times in the past 20 years or so, may I urge him and the Foreign Secretary to give due priority to the issue to ensure that at an early stage we will have a just peace and reconciliation on this worried island?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind and very generous remarks, and for the way in which he put them. I completely agree. Having made this visit, having taking this important stand and having given the issue the attention it deserves, we must now make sure that we follow through, but we should do so on a basis of huge optimism about the potential future of the country. If proper efforts at reconciliation are made, there is no reason why that country, which is now essentially at peace and is not suffering warfare and terrorism, cannot be an immense success story in the future.

EU Council

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We must ensure that the way Europe works is not always by reaching for regulatory changes and costs when it examines a problem. Sometimes that will just be about Europe behaving in a different way—as I hope it will on shale gas, for example—but on other occasions it will require institutional changes, such as the red card system that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has suggested, or further treaty changes to try to reduce the burden of regulation, or indeed take this country out of areas of regulation. All those things should be on the table.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of the statement. It is unclear whether the UK will be allowed to rejoin some measures following the block opt-out of EU criminal law because, of course, rejoining will be subject to veto by other members. What discussions on that did the Prime Minister have with his counterparts? Would it not be better to address any concerns he has by trying to reform the system rather than by leaving it, as was so clearly said in the recent Cambridge university law faculty paper on the subject?

[The Prime Minister]

I did not have discussions about that at this European Council—it was not on the agenda—but it is absolutely right to exercise the UK opt-out. That means coming out of all the areas and having the opportunity, if we so wish, to negotiate our way back in to those that matter most. That is the right approach. Europe should be focused on prosperity, growth and trade, and not on other issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

I am surprised to hear that question from the hon. Gentleman. His constituency is set to benefit from a huge level of private sector investment. We talk about the exciting things happening in north Wales and his constituency is one of the places that will benefit the most. He should back that.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential costs and benefits of High Speed 2 to Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

The Wales Office is committed to ensuring Wales derives the maximum possible benefit from HS2. In addition to improved journey times and extra rail capacity that passengers across the nation will experience, my Department will be working closely with Lord Deighton’s HS2 growth task force to identify further benefits to Wales.

[Mr Llwyd]

With respect, that is not a good answer considering the Minister knew of this question three or four weeks ago. Is there a robust cost-benefit analysis of this whole fantastical project?

[Mr Jones]

The cost-benefit analysis indicates that there will be a positive impact of £15 billion, in which Wales will be a full participant.

[Mr Llwyd]

With some spending projections for this vanity project topping £80 billion, will the Secretary of State commit to fighting for a Barnett consequential equivalent for Wales, which could be between £3 billion and £4 billion and make a huge difference to the Welsh rail network? Will he join his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), in pleading this case, as reported today in the Western Mail?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure he has advised his constituent about the Telephone Preference Service—TPS—through which one can stop some of the calls that come through, but it is a real bane in some people’s lives so I am sure we can look further at what else can be done.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

On reflection, does the Prime Minister agree that allowing more time for further diplomatic discussions to take place over Syria was preferable to rushing in and bombing the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the fact that America was so clear that it would take action is what brought about a change of heart on the part of the Syrian Government. That is the real lesson that we should learn.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Looking at the Government motion taken in the round, it appears to me, despite the statement that it has been watered down, to be something of a paving motion for military action. It includes the words

“may, if necessary, require military action”;

it refers to a

“legal basis for taking action”;

and in the penultimate paragraph, it refers to “backing military action”. It also states that

“in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations…a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy”.

The serious question is: why was a draft motion not presented to the United Nations before now; why the delay?

It is all very well referring to “difficulties”, but diplomacy has not failed utterly. It was, after all, the Russians who pressed the Syrian Government to allow the UN inspectors in on Monday. My party colleagues and I believe that any military action would prolong the conflict and lead to further bloodshed. We would call on the Government to use their influence and their relations with others to bring all the relevant parties around the table to conduct talks. The chief aim should, of course, be to prevent further loss of life.

There has been an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria for almost two years. The Government should put greater effort into ensuring a greater humanitarian response, gearing up the level of aid sent to the region. Previous military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other recent examples show that the commitment of troops without an end plan costs a very high price—both in money and in lives lost, not to mention the physical and mental scars that individuals and communities at home and abroad must therefore bear. If the UK backs US Government military action or indeed participates in it, the conflict could well draw in Russia and Iran to back Assad’s regime, possibly making diplomatic talks more difficult, and certainly not easier, in the future.

In yesterday’s Guardian, Hans Blix wrote that even if Assad used chemical weapons, the west has no mandate to act as a global policeman, and that by ordering air strikes against Syria without a UN Security Council mandate, President Obama would

“be doing the same as Bush in 2003”.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

In the right hon. Gentleman’s legal experience and opinion, at what point does destroying air defences and preventing a military capability start to become regime change, and would not that be illegal?

[Mr Llwyd]

Clearly, regime change is unlawful in international law. Any incursion of that kind would have to take sides, so inevitably that will follow. The hon. Gentleman is right.

The timing of the decision must also be questioned. If, as some of us believe, the decision on military action has already been made in Washington and agreed by the UK Government, that is the real reason why we are here: because Washington feels that there should be some bombs falling this weekend. Many atrocities have taken place in the two years since the conflict began. Surely those seeking to take military action could wait a few days longer, to ensure that their facts are straight.

It is obvious that there is no threat to the security of the UK—that we know. The Government seek military action in order to deter and undermine chemical weapons. They may well seek that—that is fine, although military action must be sanctioned by law—but surely they should wait until the full conclusive proof is available, verified by the UN, having had the inspectors’ report. The basis of any decision on military action taken in that light, the Government’s own litmus test, should be undeniable. That is why I believe it is imperative that even within the Government’s own reasoning, they should heed the UN Secretary-General’s call for more time to establish whether chemical weapons were used and, if possible, where they emanated from.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

There appear to be two conflicting objectives in what has been set out by the Prime Minister. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that on one hand it is about policing the use of chemical weapons, and on the other a humanitarian agenda is being set out, with legal reasons why a humanitarian intervention would be possible? The three conditions could have been met in Syria at any time for many months, however, and have been met in many other countries around the world where we have not intervened, so which is the real objective in taking us forward in this way?

[Mr Llwyd]

That is a very good question. The abstract of the legal opinion presumes that there will be no progress via the UN, so it then goes into detail on humanitarian intervention. There are at least four flaws in that debate, but that is for another time, and no doubt we shall have that opportunity.

Even if nothing else is learned from Iraq—there are many lessons to be learned—the one lesson should surely be that weapons inspectors should be given time to carry out their work and report fully to the UN. The situation in Egypt is a timely reminder of western Governments’ fickle adherence to so-called universal principles: first supporting the movements rising against the Mubarak regime in favour of democracy, and then siding with the army when it carried out a coup and overthrew a democratically elected Government. Gaddafi was condemned for Lockerbie, then lauded for opposing al-Qaeda, then condemned again swiftly when the situation turned in Libya. In the recent past, Assad was lauded by the British Government. His actions now clearly are deplorable, as have been the actions of many other groups fighting in this conflict, which has descended into a bloody civil war.

The recent build-up of rhetoric regarding military action has been confusing. Last Friday, the United States and UK Governments were pressing for weapons inspectors to be allowed into Syria. On Monday the inspectors went in, albeit under difficult circumstances, but on Monday evening all indications were that the US and UK had made up their mind, and that a strike was indeed imminent. That may be why we are here today. On Tuesday the UK softened its stance, however, perhaps worried about the consequences of proceeding into conflict where there is very little public support for it—the legacy of Iraq looming large, as has been said.

Plaid Cymru will be voting against the Government motion and instead supporting the amendment tabled by the official Opposition, and if it is called, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The past decade has seen the UK embroiled in many bloody wars, paying a high price in treasure and blood, and failing to secure any peace. The middle east is in a very precarious state as we speak. We must learn well from those mistakes. I want to place it on the record that our support for the official Opposition’s amendment today does not in any way imply that we shall in any way vote for a military strike in due course, unless the evidence supports it.