Post Offices in Wales

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian C. Lucas]

I would like the post office in Wrexham, as a public institution, to contribute to the local economy. It is a Crown post office in Wrexham, and it is the main post office. In fact, it is now the only post office in the town centre of Wrexham, which is the largest town in Wales. The post office is taking business rates away from the local economy, because it has gone upstairs into another store that is already occupied by a WHSmith and is not paying business rates on a separate premises. So less income is coming into the town as a result of this decision. Furthermore, it is treating disabled people with a lack of respect by insisting that they go to a first-floor premises to avail themselves of services that we all take for granted.

There are relevant pieces of legislation relating to disability. I have no doubt that this particular example is legal, but there is no doubt either—I have seen it for myself—that these arrangements are much more difficult for disabled people than those that existed previously. I felt so ashamed when I went on the site inspection that we have a post office in this day and age insisting, for its own commercial reasons, on moving the premises to the first floor when ground-floor premises are available in other parts of the town. That is disrespectful to disabled people and not something that any Government organisation should be doing in this day and age.

I have made that position very clear to the Post Office, and I am pleased that the Minister for Disabled People has made clear her view that post office premises should be on the ground floor. I find it extraordinary that I even have to say that. It comes to something when a commercial decision of that type is made in a society where we should be treating all our constituents and all the people we represent with equal respect. I know that the Post Office is considering shifting various post offices to first-floor premises in other parts of the country, for commercial reasons. It is very important that a strong message is sent to the Post Office that it is not acceptable so to do.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I face similar concerns in my constituency about proposals to move the location of post offices. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the Post Office pays due notice to the consultation process? It is imperative also that the views of local communities in these situations are taken on board and not disregarded.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Indeed. There is no doubt that my constituents, particularly those who are disabled, feel very strongly about this issue. They have visited the post office on a number of occasions to make clear their views. They have supported me in the protestations I have put forward, and I will continue to put them forward, because I want the post office in Wrexham back on the ground floor. I also want the Post Office to give a commitment that it will not allow post office premises to be constructed on the first floor when ground-floor premises are available.

I am ashamed that I have to make those points to the Post Office; it should be using ground floor premises in any event. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the assurance that I want to relay to my disabled constituents—that they will be treated with equal respect, despite the fact that they are disabled.

Wales Bill

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

That is a very interesting and pertinent point. Welsh, of course, is a British language. I will regale the House, if I may, with a point that surprised the predecessor of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) when I made it in the House some years ago when he was having a go at me about my Welsh language enthusiasms. I told him that English is also a Welsh language, which promptly shut him up.

I will turn briefly to Government amendment 13, which removes the requirement for a statement by the Presiding Officer to be made in both Welsh and English. As has already been said, the Assembly’s legal requirements and Standing Orders already require statements to be bilingual, so the amendment removes duplication and I am glad to welcome it.

On amendments 63 to 67, amendment 1 and new clause 2, we would welcome the devolution of gambling, betting, lotteries and the associated licensing. The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) has done a great deal of work on the issue and I commend her for it. By devolving responsibility for those issues, I am sure we will be able to create solutions that really fit the needs of the people of Wales.

I hope, of course, for a complete capitulation on all those matters by the Secretary of State, but if, unaccountably, he is not that way inclined, I look forward to his comments later this evening or to whatever he would care to correspond with me about by letter. I will not, therefore, seek to divide the House.

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

I am pleased that this Bill has come to the House; I, too, sat through many Welsh Affairs Committee sittings. I support new clause 2 because, if agreed, it would allow the Welsh Assembly to take action on fixed odds betting terminals. I want to place on the record my membership of the newly established all-party parliamentary group on FOBTs, and my support for the comments of its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris).

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passionate question. I agree with him that access to the market is important for the Welsh economy, but he should also recognise that the growth in Welsh exports has been faster to countries outside the European Union. We need a balanced approach and to ensure that we have access to markets throughout the world, so that Welsh manufacturing businesses, such as Airbus, can carry on with their recent success.

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

5. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the outcome of the EU referendum on regeneration projects in Wales.

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

As Secretary of State I am determined to maintain our recent economic success and to ensure that we manage our transition to the new arrangements in a calm and measured way. As we negotiate our way out of the EU, a whole range of decisions will have to be made in due course.

[Gerald Jones]

The A465—the heads of the valleys road—runs through my constituency and has historically had a bad safety record—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the people of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney at the very least will want to hear the hon. Gentleman.

[Gerald Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With EU funds, the road has been mostly turned into a dual carriageway, but some phases of the work have yet to start. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he will do all that he can and work with the Welsh Government to provide support and ensure that that project and many like it will not be jeopardised by Brexit?

Welsh Affairs

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this important debate on Welsh affairs, which marks St David’s day.

I would like to focus on three issues, albeit briefly. First, there is no doubt that Wales has been hit hard by the UK Tory Government’s austerity measures. In my constituency advice surgeries, the most common theme is the hardship people face due to the welfare reform agenda being pursued by the Tory Government. I think there are Tory Members who do not understand the situation people find themselves in.

Specifically, the spare room subsidy, or bedroom tax, is harming people in my constituency and across Wales. A report by the Welsh Affairs Committee in 2013 showed that Wales was disproportionately affected compared with the rest of Britain, and that remains the case. This tax is, quite frankly, the most unfair and pernicious since Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax.

I have spoken with staff at my local citizens advice bureau in Merthyr Tydfil, who have told me about the many cases they regularly see coming through their doors—people who have nowhere else to turn. Those clients already have a number of other significant issues in their lives, and the bedroom tax only adds to them. Some of those people are now in rent arrears because of it, and some could lose their homes. That could have massive consequences, and for those who are physically or mentally disabled, it could result in even more severe issues, such as homelessness, suicidal thoughts, substance misuse or further debt—a downward spiral.

Unfortunately, in many communities in my constituency, there is not a huge number of smaller properties. Therefore, people affected by the bedroom tax decide either to stay in their property, thus incurring a financial penalty and placing great strain on their ability to manage, or to move to a smaller property, which can often be in a village some miles away. I have spoken with constituents who are in debt for the first time because of having to pay the bedroom tax. Food bank usage has increased massively, which is totally unacceptable in 21st-century Britain.

The second issue I want to focus on is the forthcoming EU referendum. As other Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon and for Neath (Christina Rees), have outlined, Wales has benefited considerably from EU investment. Projects right across Wales have been delivered using EU funding, which is vital in helping to create a skilled and inclusive labour market and in driving economic prosperity.

[Byron Davies]

When we had the first round of funding, the then First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, said it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but here we are now with a third round of funding. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that?

[Gerald Jones]

EU funding is important, and it has benefited Wales considerably—the evidence is there in terms of jobs and the businesses that have been supported—but there is still work to do. [Interruption.] If I may, I will carry on.

A key example of the projects I mentioned is the Welsh Labour Government’s Jobs Growth Wales fund, which has supported more than 15,000 young people across Wales since 2012, when it was created in response to the Tories’ scrapping of the future jobs fund. Using £25 million of European funding, the programme has supported countless young people. There are many more examples of how the EU has benefited Wales, which is why it is so important for Wales that the UK remains a strong part of the EU.

I turn now to the Wales Bill. As the party that established the Welsh Assembly, the Labour party supports the additional powers for Wales proposed in the draft Bill, but we had significant concerns about how the Assembly’s powers were rolled back in other parts of the Bill. It is fair to say that the draft Bill was not met with universal support. In fact, despite the Welsh Affairs Committee having witnesses from various aspects of Welsh life, it was a struggle to find anyone who had anything positive to say about it. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has finally listened to the overwhelming body of evidence from experts, lawyers and politicians from all parties, and to the Committee’s recent report. The Bill is deeply flawed and I welcome the fact that he is now not pushing ahead with it in its current form. Labour Members have been raising concerns about the Bill since its publication last October. If those concerns had been listened to then, perhaps we would not be in this situation now. Only last month, in the Welsh Grand Committee, many of the same concerns were again raised with the Secretary of State, who at that point, just a few short weeks ago, was defending many of the provisions he now seems to have binned.

It is only fair, right and proper that Members of this House, and indeed members of the Welsh Affairs Committee, have clarity about the detail of what the Secretary of State announced on Monday. Specifically, we need to know if anything is going to replace the necessity test, what system will be used for Minister of the Crown consents, and how different the list of reservations will be. It is imperative that the Secretary of State gets the Bill right this time and sticks to a timetable. Any delay means a consequent delay in the powers being transferred to the Welsh Assembly. It is also important that the Secretary of State and the Government fully consult the Welsh Government to iron out the practicalities.

The fact that the Secretary of State has presented a radically different Bill from the one that the Select Committee scrutinised may be problematic. The Committee’s report states:

“Whilst this pre-legislative process has flushed out views, it has also made it apparent that the final Bill will be significantly different to that which we have been scrutinising. That is wrong. Whilst changes and improvements are what this process seeks to provide, the weight of the evidence we received has meant we have had to focus on fundamental principles of the draft Bill rather than the specifics of the text. The Government should have focused its effort on resolving these matters of principle, before proceeding with a draft Bill.”

The Secretary of State said that he wanted a lasting devolution settlement that would resolve the constitutional situation for a generation, and I am sure that is what we all want. The best way to get it is to consult and negotiate with all stakeholders, such as the Welsh Government, the Welsh public sector, and other key interested parties to get broad agreement on the direction of travel and iron out the practical difficulties and issues. Ideally that should have been done before the Bill was put to this House, but it should be done now. The Bill is deeply flawed as it stands, and progress is needed. I urge the Secretary of State—who is now, thankfully, in his place—to get things back on track.

Draft Wales Bill

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

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

Last, but not least, Mr Hanson; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is a double pleasure because, as is the case for many other Members, this is the first Welsh Grand Committee that I have attended.

As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, the draft Bill does not have much support from academics, lawyers and even the Secretary of State’s party colleagues in the Welsh Assembly. Indeed, many of those who have given evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee have outlined concerns about the Bill, particularly regarding whether it takes us forward. As our party established the Welsh Assembly, Labour Members support the additional powers for Wales proposed in the Bill, but we have significant concerns about how the powers of the Assembly would be rolled back by its other provisions.

The Secretary of State says that he wants the Bill to provide a clear and lasting settlement, but I am deeply concerned that it would take devolution backwards and not provide anything like the stable solution that he is seeking. In fact, I agree with the view that the Bill may be unworkable. We know that existing legislation sets out basic tests that the Assembly must meet before it can legislate—it must abide by EU law and the European convention on human rights. It is regrettable that the Bill increases the number of tests from nine to 13. It is clear to most people that that will make the work of the National Assembly more complicated and increase bureaucracy.

There is much wrong with the Bill, but I shall focus on the necessity tests. They appear throughout the Bill, but several legal experts have made the point that “necessity” has an array of different meanings in law. The unfortunate result of the necessity test would be that many more cases could end up in the Supreme Court to decide what “necessity” means. Clearly, that would slow down the Assembly’s work and would cost the taxpayer hugely. The reality would be the bizarre situation of the Supreme Court, rather than the elected National Assembly for Wales, deciding whether a law is necessary.

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

Although I have missed some of this afternoon’s debate, for which I apologise, I have heard a lot about various legal jurisdictions—separate or whatever—and constant calls from Labour Members for a different jurisdiction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, who has now disappeared from the room, spoke of how much time he has spent sitting in Committees, as have I. Those of us on the Select Committee heard from lawyers, academics and legal experts who constantly wanted a new jurisdiction in Wales, although they seem to be the only ones calling for it. We have heard from the Secretary of State that the senior legal people in this country do not recommend that. The general public in Aberavon and Brecon and Radnorshire do not want it, either.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is too long. He will have an opportunity to make a speech after Mr Jones has finished, should he so wish. Interventions should be short sentences.

[Gerald Jones]

I am not sure where the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire was going with that. Clearly, we want a system that works and that provides a framework for moving the Assembly and devolution forward.

The Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on the draft Bill says:

“The necessity tests have elicited considerable reaction amongst those who have provided us with evidence and it is fair to say that these tests have received very little support.”

We should accept the principle that the Assembly should be able to legislate freely in the areas devolved to it without having to prove that its actions are necessary.

[Stephen Crabb]

There is nothing in the draft Bill that makes the Welsh Assembly consider whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary. This is about a spillover effect in reserved areas impacting on England and the underlying principles of civil and criminal law. There is freedom to act as long as it can be satisfied that the impact is no greater than necessary. There is nothing about satisfying an overall test of whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones]

There are necessity tests throughout the Bill. Many existing Acts of the Assembly would not have been possible if the draft Bill had been in force. We should accept the principle that the Assembly should legislate freely in those areas that are devolved.

The Bill would be much easier to implement if the necessity test was taken out of it—I ask the Secretary of State to consider that—but, unfortunately, I am not filled with much confidence that that will happen. However, to be fair, the Secretary of State has indicated that this is a draft Bill and that he is listening to comments during pre-legislative scrutiny. After listening to the deliberations of not only the Welsh Affairs Committee, but those in all aspects of Welsh life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli mentioned, I hope that the Secretary of State will act accordingly.

Draft Wales Bill

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

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

Last, but not least, Mr Hanson; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is a double pleasure because, as is the case for many other Members, this is the first Welsh Grand Committee that I have attended.

As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, the draft Bill does not have much support from academics, lawyers and even the Secretary of State’s party colleagues in the Welsh Assembly. Indeed, many of those who have given evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee have outlined concerns about the Bill, particularly regarding whether it takes us forward. As our party established the Welsh Assembly, Labour Members support the additional powers for Wales proposed in the Bill, but we have significant concerns about how the powers of the Assembly would be rolled back by its other provisions.

The Secretary of State says that he wants the Bill to provide a clear and lasting settlement, but I am deeply concerned that it would take devolution backwards and not provide anything like the stable solution that he is seeking. In fact, I agree with the view that the Bill may be unworkable. We know that existing legislation sets out basic tests that the Assembly must meet before it can legislate—it must abide by EU law and the European convention on human rights. It is regrettable that the Bill increases the number of tests from nine to 13. It is clear to most people that that will make the work of the National Assembly more complicated and increase bureaucracy.

There is much wrong with the Bill, but I shall focus on the necessity tests. They appear throughout the Bill, but several legal experts have made the point that “necessity” has an array of different meanings in law. The unfortunate result of the necessity test would be that many more cases could end up in the Supreme Court to decide what “necessity” means. Clearly, that would slow down the Assembly’s work and would cost the taxpayer hugely. The reality would be the bizarre situation of the Supreme Court, rather than the elected National Assembly for Wales, deciding whether a law is necessary.

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

Although I have missed some of this afternoon’s debate, for which I apologise, I have heard a lot about various legal jurisdictions—separate or whatever—and constant calls from Labour Members for a different jurisdiction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, who has now disappeared from the room, spoke of how much time he has spent sitting in Committees, as have I. Those of us on the Select Committee heard from lawyers, academics and legal experts who constantly wanted a new jurisdiction in Wales, although they seem to be the only ones calling for it. We have heard from the Secretary of State that the senior legal people in this country do not recommend that. The general public in Aberavon and Brecon and Radnorshire do not want it, either.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is too long. He will have an opportunity to make a speech after Mr Jones has finished, should he so wish. Interventions should be short sentences.

[Gerald Jones]

I am not sure where the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire was going with that. Clearly, we want a system that works and that provides a framework for moving the Assembly and devolution forward.

The Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on the draft Bill says:

“The necessity tests have elicited considerable reaction amongst those who have provided us with evidence and it is fair to say that these tests have received very little support.”

We should accept the principle that the Assembly should be able to legislate freely in the areas devolved to it without having to prove that its actions are necessary.

[Stephen Crabb]

There is nothing in the draft Bill that makes the Welsh Assembly consider whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary. This is about a spill-over effect in reserved areas impacting on England and the underlying principles of civil and criminal law. There is freedom to act as long as it can be satisfied that the impact is no greater than necessary. There is nothing about satisfying an overall test of whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones]

There are necessity tests throughout the Bill. Many existing Acts of the Assembly would not have been possible if the draft Bill had been in force. We should accept the principle that the Assembly should legislate freely in those areas that are devolved.

The Bill would be much easier to implement if the necessity test was taken out of it—I ask the Secretary of State to consider that—but, unfortunately, I am not filled with much confidence that that will happen. However, to be fair, the Secretary of State has indicated that this is a draft Bill and that he is listening to comments during pre-legislative scrutiny. After listening to the deliberations of not only the Welsh Affairs Committee, but those in all aspects of Welsh life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli mentioned, I hope that the Secretary of State will act accordingly.

Barnett Floor (Wales)

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Record investment in public services in Wales was made under the Labour Government. Indeed, the Conservatives were so impressed that in September 2007 the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—now Chancellor—adopted our spending plans for the next couple of years. That is how impressed they were, although these days they seem to be taking a different view of that record investment.

The Barnett floor works by multiplying positive funding increments to Wales not only by the comparability factor and population share, but by a further percentage increment. The qualifier is that the formula is not intended to work in reverse, with negative funding increments, because that would simply widen the underfunding gap.

In October 2010, the National Assembly for Wales unanimously endorsed a motion for the implementation of a funding floor, to be followed by wider funding reform. Nevertheless, the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015 did not deliver.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be acting with greater urgency on implementing the funding floor, given the Holtham commission statement that Wales could be underfunded by between £5.3 billion and £8.5 billion over the 10 years to 2020? Does he also agree that the Government’s lack of action on the matter suggests a lack of interest in achieving a funding floor and fairer funding for Wales?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree entirely. The matter is urgent, but we are concerned about the Government’s lack of interest. The coalition’s programme for government in the previous Parliament stated that the priority was to reduce the deficit and that changes to the system could await stabilisation of the public finances, although why exactly the coalition Government were incapable of paying sufficient attention to Wales to deal with the issue—or even to start dealing with it—remains entirely unclear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasury Ministers, the First Minister and the Welsh Finance Minister on the level of funding received by the Welsh Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

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

[Gerald Jones]

Does the Government’s failure to eliminate the deficit in the last Parliament not mean that Wales faces further significant cuts, which will be deeper than those we have had so far? Why should the people of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney pay for the Chancellor’s broken promises?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman risks repeating the mistakes that his colleagues made throughout the five years of the last Parliament, when they set their face against responsibility and failed to support any of the measures that we took to get on top of the national deficit. Something that they might want to learn as they review their election defeat is that people up and down the United Kingdom support financial responsibility.