Broadband Universal Service Obligation

Debate between Ian C. Lucas and Jonathan Edwards

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian C. Lucas]

The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey); I beg his pardon. I remember the wording, as I heard it so many times: the coalition Government were going to deliver the best superfast broadband in Europe by 2015. But they rejected universal broadband, and ever since, I have, when sitting on these Benches, watched Conservative MPs complaining about lack of broadband provision. They are complaining because, as we all know from our constituents—individuals and companies—that provision is not being delivered. The result has been disastrous, especially for communities away from south-east England and the richest parts of the UK.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points on universality. Llwyn Helyg country house is an award-winning business in my constituency; it has won a range of accolades and has a five-star rating on TripAdvisor. The only negative comment it has ever had is about bad broadband provision, and that has an impact on its business.

[Ian C. Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The same point has been made to me, and I am sure to many other Members, particularly those representing beautiful constituencies with large tourism sectors. Broadband provision is extremely important for businesses in that sector nowadays; to appeal to and access a worldwide market, they have to be able to provide these services.

Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)

Debate between Ian C. Lucas and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Ian C. Lucas]

I am interested by that characteristically reflective speech from the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I am pleased to follow it and will pursue some of the points he raised.

Academics do not generally favour demolitions, but anyone who attended yesterday evening’s briefing on the draft Wales Bill by the Wales governance centre at Cardiff University and the constitution unit at University College London saw an exception to the rule. It exposed the incoherence of the draft Bill that we are considering today, and it is clear that, unloved and unsupported as it is, it will effectively proceed no further in its present form. It is yet another example of constitutional vandalism, fraying the edges of the United Kingdom’s constitution while diminishing the governance of the UK as a whole. As Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College London, argued in a lecture in the House of Lords last night, we need a constitutional convention to address the long-term future of constitutional arrangements in the UK.

Almost unseen, this Secretary of State for Wales has presided over the sidelining of Welsh MPs on issues that directly affect the people whom we represent. Representatives are elected from north Wales to play a part in the governance of foundation hospitals in England but, under the EVEL proposals, MPs from Wales will be excluded from stages of legislation affecting those hospitals. The reality is that the Conservative position is illogical and does not in any way reflect the position on the ground. Moreover, the Conservatives have refused to apply the EVEL principles to Wales. There are no Welsh votes for Welsh laws and no Scots votes for Scots laws. Even though there are devolved institutions, some issues that directly affect Wales are not devolved to the National Assembly. S4C is one example. Issues relating to S4C, which is precious to Wales, could be decided by a majority of English MPs, overriding the views of Welsh MPs. The rules for English MPs do not apply to Welsh MPs.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Going back to the hon. Gentleman’s point about a constitutional convention, does he support the comments of the former right hon. Member for Neath, who now sits in the other place? He made the case for a confederal model, whereby the historic nations would decide what powers they wanted to be held in their part of the state and then an agreement would be made at the UK level, as opposed to the current model, whereby the UK decides what is devolved down to the historic nations.

[Ian C. Lucas]

I do not think that I can deal with the constitutional question in response to an intervention, but I welcome any consideration or detailed assessment of the constitution as a whole. I want to get away from the principle of trying to deal with such issues piecemeal across the United Kingdom, which is a massive mistake.

Wales Bill

Debate between Ian C. Lucas and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

I stand corrected. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has voted with us several times and broken his party Whip.

The lockstep, of course, was a handcuff measure that would have made the powers in the Bill unusable—the only plus side was the extra borrowing capacity it would have given to the Welsh Government—and removing it creates greater flexibility, which is obviously to be welcomed. When we were debating the Bill in the Commons, however, I warned the Government that events in Scotland would supersede it, and that has indeed been the case. The Union survived by a thread, and even then only following the famous vow promising home rule, devolution max or something as close to federalism as possible. In that regard, the Smith commission was extremely disappointing.

Westminster has one chance left to save the Union, or the British state as it is currently constituted, but the Smith commission is playing into the hands of pro-independence campaigners in Scotland. It nowhere near delivers the powers promised in the vow, but it is far in advance of what the UK Government are offering to Wales in the Bill. The signature policy of the Smith commission is 100% income tax devolution and the ability of the Scottish Executive to set as many bands as they want at whatever level they want. Indeed, my party put forward such an amendment during proceedings on the Wales Bill in the spring.

[Ian Lucas]

If the Smith commission is not in accordance with the vow that was given, why did the Scottish National party agree to it?

[Jonathan Edwards]

The commission’s remit is not one of its own choosing, but the SNP decided to act in the best interests of the country and move the process forward. Making out that the Smith commission proposals are what were included in the vow is not right. It was essentially home rule or devolution max, and on any definition of devo max, it means the full devolution of all powers apart from defence, foreign affairs, the monarchy and military policy. That is not included in the Smith commission proposals, which were less significant than what was promised to the people of Scotland on the eve of the referendum.

As I was saying, the Smith commission is vastly more progressive in its trajectory of travel, offering 100% of income tax in comparison with the Wales Bill offer of only a paltry income tax sharing arrangement—and even then, only following a referendum many years down the line.