Debate on the Address

Debate between Elfyn Llwyd and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), who has once more shown that he is a master of his brief. His remarks about care were thoughtful. Over the coming weeks, we can develop some of the thoughts he has expounded, and undoubtedly he will make an important contribution to this debate, if he has not done so already.

I am tempted into the arena of reform of the other place. I will be honest: it is the least of my worries. As we all know, it began in 1911, and for all I know, in the next century we will still be talking about it—well, we will not, but others will be. I recall the valiant efforts of the late Robin Cook, for example, who was effectively stitched up to fail by the Labour Whips. There are very powerful forces at work within and without the usual channels, so let us not get too excited about sudden reform.

I am sure that Members will recognise, however, that the other place needs reform. Clearly, any Chamber with even a partly hereditary principle has got to be wrong and due for reform, but how do we reform it? Each suggestion seems to have consequences we have not thought about. For example, would elected or appointed Members next door have the same validity, legitimacy and so on? If we empower the other Chamber, will we have a political boxing match with them all the time as we often have within this Chamber? I am sure that we will address those questions, but personally I will not hold my breath in expectation of imminent reform—although I might be wrong, as I often am.

That is not to say that I favour the status quo, but I do foresee problems—some visible ones, some undercurrents —that could stymie our debate. We might come up with wonderful solutions, but with the best will in the world, will they happen? [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) wish to intervene? I would be pleased to accept an intervention. [Interruption.] It was just the way he was sitting. I beg his pardon.

[Dr Murrison]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his invitation to intervene. He referred to excitement in his remarks. How much did he detect across the country in the run-up to the recent elections? I looked but could not find any.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman has hit an interesting note. The good people of Dwyfor Meirionnydd were hugely underwhelmed at the thought of House of Lords reform, given that there were at least another 210 subjects they wanted to talk about first.

For what they are worth, I shall leave those comments on Lords reform up in the air—pointless, as they may well be.

The Gracious Speech contained several interesting proposals, but as always the devil is in the detail. Nevertheless, I shall speak on the basis of what I know now of the speech. First, though, I would like to congratulate Her Majesty on her reign and on having been an excellent monarch for many years. I fully welcome the Government’s intention to bring in the groceries ombudsman—I think that is what it is called—in the Gracious Speech. Many of us throughout the House have championed such a thing for a long time. I first came to it in about 2004—2005 possibly—and many people in the Chamber and outside have argued similarly.

As we know, a draft Bill was published and scrutinised during the last Session and might well be the basis of the legislation coming before us shortly. Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I and everyone in the Chamber are aware of the crisis in the milk industry, for example. We need an ombudsman with real powers and teeth to tackle these problems, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said. We owe it not only to the farming community but to the many other suppliers to ensure that the ombudsman can act to good effect. Unless we do that, I am afraid that the measure might prove a damp squib.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, with something else. [Interruption.]

The farmer came to an agreement with one of the large supermarkets. Believe it or not, it came out like this: the supplier was allowed 1.5p profit per litre of water, but the water was sold by the supermarket for more than 80p. He declined to do it. That 1.5p included travelling from mid-Wales across to Shropshire to deliver the water every day. It simply was not worth his while, yet apparently those terms are typical. We need to get to grips with these issues, otherwise all our home producers —of good vegetables, apples and so on—will say, “Well, it’s not worth it. We’re packing up.” That is the last thing we want.

[Dr Murrison]

I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about producers and farmers. Of course, my constituents, many of whom farm, would expect me to say that. However, my constituents also require good value for money from supermarkets. Does he agree that it is important that supermarkets can apply pressure to large multinational chains that produce goods and from which consumers need good value? There is a clear difference between the two.

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, and one hopes that the ombudsman will be involved in that scenario as well. We shall no doubt consider the Bill shortly, and I hope that that aspect will be covered; otherwise, we will be doing only half the job. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says.

I shall move on swiftly to the notion of televising court proceedings, which has not yet been mentioned. As a lawyer, I am not in favour of televising advocates, because there could be a danger of their playing to the gallery. I am not saying that many would do so, but some might. I understand, however, that the proposals will follow the Scottish model, which would be very sensible. They would confine the televising to the judge’s summing up and sentencing remarks. That would be helpful, because sentencing remarks give out not only a warning to the public but an indication to practitioners of the penalties that certain offences attract. A period of experimentation would be helpful in this regard.

Much has been said about the recent flurry of activity from active shareholders in companies such as Trinity Mirror and Aviva. I will not rehearse those arguments, but I hope that we will see a strengthening of shareholder democracy. It is abominable that share values can go down while bonuses go up. That makes no sense whatever. We also believe in a maximum wage, with a set differential between those at the top of a company and those at the bottom. That is not a new idea. In fact, it was first floated by the successful financier J. P. Morgan more than 100 years ago. It seems to work well in many spheres, and I would like to see it happening in this context. I would also support workers’ representation in the boardroom, to provide perspective for companies on remuneration and on the business of the company in general. Perhaps we can learn from structures that are already in place in successful countries such as Germany.

I wholeheartedly welcome the notion of the separation of retail and investment banking. The Chancellor will know that that proposal has the support of the whole House; it is long overdue.

Proposals have been put forward for a single-tier pension and, from what I have heard, that seems a good idea. We floated the idea in 2010, with what we called the living pension. This seems to be a similar idea and, whatever it is called, if it is pitched reasonably, it will be a good measure. We all have examples of widows telling us that they have missed three or four years’ work while they brought up their children, and that they are now condemned to receiving a much lower state pension. A single-tier pension would be simpler to administer and better all round. I welcome the notion, at least, although we will need to look into the details that will no doubt appear before long.

On the proposals for procedural changes to adoption, there is certainly a case for ensuring that youngsters who come up for adoption are taken care of with the minimum of fuss and delay. Delay only adds to the heartache. I have no doubt that we all have the best interests of the children at heart, but we must remember that 40% of our courts have now been shut down and tens of thousands of court staff have been laid off. Those staff would have assisted families in their first encounter with the court process. In addition, hundreds of people at the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—which prepares reports on families involved in placement and, ultimately, adoption—have also gone, and there have been huge cuts in the probation service. There have been cuts in social services as well. How are we going to improve the adoption service against the background of those cuts? I think that there will be problems ahead. I hope that we will be able to achieve those improvements, because there is certainly a case for doing so, but I am afraid that there will be problems.

I can add nothing to what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said about the proposals for internet surveillance. He put forward his views on them in the clearest possible way. I actually believe that there is a case for surveillance to enable the security services to carry out their work, but there must be safeguards in place. I am sure that we will be able to discuss that matter further. The proposals for secret courts are doomed to failure from the beginning. What the right hon. Gentleman did not say—unintentionally, no doubt—was that several special advocates have resigned, over the years, because they find the concept so one-sided and unjust that they do not want to be part of it. Should we be perpetuating and extending that system? The answer, quite frankly, is no, and anyone with any concern for the court process would undoubtedly say that that is the proper response.

I am surprised that there was no mention in the speech of the High Speed 2 rail link. We have heard a lot about it over the past few months, but it seems to have gone to ground for the time being. I was rather looking forward to Wales receiving a Barnett formula consequential of around £1.9 billion, which could be spent on improving transport infrastructure across Wales and electrifying the lines that sorely need it.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Elfyn Llwyd and Andrew Murrison

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

The way in which Mr Fletcher went about the matter was to e-mail every member of the probation service who was connected with prisons and ask them how many people on their books had been in the services. That was how he came up with his figures, but even within the latest Government figures of 3.5% or 4%, we see that in Dartmoor, for example, the figure was 17.5% in 2007.

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister and the shadow Minister are right, but then so is the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). He is probably about to cite the figures for violent and sexual offenders, which show that there appears to be a greater likelihood that people with a service background will fall into that category. However, we would expect people with a service background to be less represented than others in the prison population, would we not? They are selected because they do not have a criminal record when they join up, and they are members of a disciplined service. That needs to be borne in mind when considering the figures.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree, and perhaps I should move away from the figures, because I cannot profess to know them precisely any more than anybody else can. All I am trying to say is that the problem is serious. The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that we would expect people who have been in the armed services to be more disciplined, and in most cases they are. However, there are worrying examples of people who, for almost inexplicable reasons, commit violent offences.

I know of two cases intimately. The first is that of a person in a fish and chip queue in north Wales who felt that somebody behind him was invading his space. He reacted violently, because he had been trained to look after himself. Unfortunately, by the time he had finished the skirmish two or three minutes later, there was a person on the floor very badly injured and he went away for four years for grievous bodily harm.

The second case is that of a young lad from my constituency who returned home from Helmand on a Wednesday and borrowed his father’s car to go out on the Friday night. He drank far too much and had an accident, killing two passengers. It could be argued that he had been to hell and back in Helmand and felt that he could do such things with impunity. I am not running that young man down, and I am sad to see him where he is, but that is another example of which I am aware.