Wales and Borders Franchise

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Albert Owen

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend, who is the parliamentary leader of our party, serves on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which has done very detailed work on this issue and specifically on the initial franchise procurement. The Committee, which consists of members from across the House, was especially damning of how that franchise was constructed.

Let us fast forward to 2015, when the story of this not-so-great train robbery steps up a gear. The then Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his deputy, Nick Clegg, graced Wales with their presence to announce a new devolution deal. As part of the so-called St David’s day agreement, we were told that powers over the procurement of the next rail franchise would be devolved. The cheers at our national stadium, where they made the announcement, were reminiscent of those at a Six Nations match. Finally, we thought, Wales would get the power to create a rail system fit for our people. Sadly, as is often the case, that optimism was misplaced.

In the next section of my speech, I will try to piece together what is a complex picture of confusion, chaos and ineptitude by Governments at both ends of the M4. As is often the case with such matters, each individual element of the story seems unremarkable—inconsequential even. However, in the round, we see an intriguing episode of incompetence, which has already cost millions of pounds and could mean chaos for rail users in Wales.

The story starts just over a year ago, in September 2016. Combing through what was then the Wales Bill—it is now the Wales Act 2017— I spotted what I assumed was an error. Despite the Government’s boy scout promises, devolution of the franchise was not included in the Bill. Being the assiduous and diligent parliamentarian that I am, I decided to flag up that omission to the Secretary of State for Wales. Following the appropriate procedures, I tabled an amendment to the Bill that would devolve the franchise. On 12 September, in a Report Stage debate on the Wales Bill, I sought the Minister’s assurance that the error would be rectified. I said:

“Before I get into my speech, may I say that I will gladly not say a word”—

regarding devolution of the franchise—

“if the Secretary of State or the Minister intervenes to say that they will proceed with that promise and if they outline the legislative vehicle whereby these powers will be devolved to Wales?”

The Secretary of State replied:

“We are negotiating with the Welsh Government over the use of a transfer of functions order under the 2006 Act.”—[Official Report, 12 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 671.]

The more naive may have thought that that was job done, but as a veteran of many a Wales Bill, I know that devolving powers is not such a simple task, so we continued to push. During the Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry into procurement of the next Wales and Borders franchise, my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) repeatedly asked how the Welsh rail responsibilities would be devolved. Every time she asked the question, whether to a UK or Welsh Government representative, she met with the same complacent response, “It’s just a technical thing; it will all get sorted,” yet everything seemed not to add up. Why wait to devolve the franchise if we could already do so? Why risk waiting? Why circumvent parliamentary scrutiny? Why be so complacent about the powers required for a multibillion-pound contract? Was the reason ignorance, incompetence or something more sinister?

Thanks to my hon. Friend’s excellent work, people will find on page 13 of the report two recommendations calling on the UK and Welsh Governments to update the Committee on the progress of the talks on the transfer of functions and to ensure that there is effective scrutiny of the transfer of functions and the way in which the Governments have agreed to devolve the powers. Of course, neither of those recommendations has been followed.

On 13 October 2016, despite still not having any powers actually to procure the franchise, the Welsh Government announced four shortlisted operators for it: KeolisAmey, a joint venture between French transport giant Keolis and public service provider Amey; MTR Corporation, which has interests globally from Australia to Sweden and is based in Hong Kong; Abellio Group, which operates bus and rail networks across Europe and is the international arm of the Dutch national rail operator; and the existing German state-owned operator Arriva. Those were the only four to enter a bid to run the next franchise.

According to the original plan, the four bids would be assessed by Transport for Wales, a Welsh Government-owned company. Through a process of “competitive dialogue”, the four bidders would work to create one of the most ambitious franchises ever, with the south Wales metro and the rest of the Welsh network covered by a single operator.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He referred to the 2016 Bill. He will remember that both he and I supported amendments for a not-for-profit franchise. Does he believe that that is now possible? In 2017, both his party and mine, in our manifestos, asked for that. The Conservatives were soundly beaten in Wales, so they should not pursue this. There should be secondary legislation to add that to the Bill, so that Wales can have a fall-back situation.

[Jonathan Edwards]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience and makes a very valid point. With the two major parties supporting such a policy, it is clearly the will of the National Assembly. I am not sure whether that is the reason why the UK Government are delaying the transfer of functions. Is ideology driving what we are seeing at the moment?

Let me reiterate that on 13 October 2016, when the shortlist was announced, the Welsh Government had no authority to procure a Welsh rail franchise. That still remained in the gift of the Department for Transport and the Minister. Now let me pull focus back to Westminster for a moment. On 6 December 2016, I asked, in Transport questions,

“now that the UK Government are devolving responsibilities for the Welsh franchise to Wales, is it not logical to devolve responsibility for the Welsh network?”

The Secretary of State’s response was dumbfounding. He said that

“we are not devolving responsibility for the whole Welsh franchise as he describes; we are doing so in part. I have said to the Welsh Government that I am happy with their taking control of the Welsh valleys lines, with a view to developing the metro system that they hope to put into service, but the Welsh franchise is not purely Welsh; it runs through large parts of England as well. We cannot have a situation where we, the Government in Westminster, give up control over services in England to the Welsh Government without checks and balances. That is not going to happen.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 128.]

Whether it was ignorance or incompetence, the UK Government and the Welsh Government were saying and doing diametrically opposed things. In fact, the UK Government, in the form of the DFT, and another bit of the UK Government, the Wales Office, were saying and doing diametrically opposed things. The Transport Secretary’s response set alarm bells ringing in Cardiff. As a result, later that day, Plaid Cymru forced an urgent question in the National Assembly. On 6 December, the very same day, the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary responsible for railways, Ken Skates, assured the Senedd that everything was on track. He said that the Welsh Government

“have agreed with the UK Government that all services operated under the current Wales and Borders franchise will be included in the next Wales and Borders franchise and that we”—

the Welsh Government—

“will lead in the procurement of these services.”

Mr Skates’ response clearly stated that the Welsh Government continued to believe that responsibility for the procurement and management of the whole of the next Wales and Borders franchise, which covers all of the existing routes, will be devolved in time.

It is clear that the Wales and UK Governments have a fundamental difference of understanding. I wrote to the Secretary of State to notify him of this confusion and continued to raise the issue in Westminster, and my colleagues did the same in Cardiff Bay, in the hope of shunting them along the track, but still there is nothing: no clear plan, no public timetable, no parliamentary scrutiny of how the devolution of rail was—or more correctly, was not—happening.

It was only a few months before the snap election. Over this period we continued to raise concerns regarding the devolution of the franchise with questions in the National Assembly. From our conversation with industry we knew that deadlines were drawing closer. On my return to Parliament, I therefore tabled written question 3534, seeking clarity on when the devolution of powers over the rail franchise will take place. This clearly acted as a catalyst, as a few days later, on Sunday 13 July, Pandora’s box was opened. The UK Government confirmed that the necessary transfer of functions will not take place until autumn 2017. This meant the 18 August date set for the official tender submissions would be missed. However, the Department for Transport said that all would be resolved by moving that date to 26 September. What transpired, however, was hardly a simple procedural matter. An exchange between the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Secretary in the Welsh Government came to light, which showed a plethora of unresolved issues, including disputes over the ownership of the valleys lines infrastructure and how the Welsh Government will exercise powers over English railway stations served by the Wales and Borders franchise.

Most startling, however, was a £1 billion dispute over funding. A rebate, which is linked to track charges, is passed to Network Rail via a grant for improving railways. For the Wales routes, that amounts to £1 billion over the 15-year span of the contract. Due to a catastrophic breakdown in communication, the Welsh Government had been procuring the franchise in the belief that this was there to be used as they wish, but the Department for Transport believed that as the Welsh Government had no responsibility for the actual rail infrastructure, this money should remain in Whitehall. You could not make it up, Madame Chair, but what does all that mean for Welsh passengers?

According to Welsh Government, the delay in procuring the franchise in August cost around £3.5 million. Further delays could cost tens of millions of pounds and put the whole procurement process at risk. Surely that was all resolved by the time we got to the later September deadline I referred to earlier. Not this time. In a committee meeting with the Cabinet Secretary and his officials at the National Assembly for Wales on 27 September, it was confirmed that powers necessary to decide who runs most of Wales’ rail services may not be given to Wales until 2018. In fact, the official tender published the same day was made by the Department for Transport and not by the Welsh Government.

I appreciate that this is a long and complex narrative, but only a few twists in the track remain. Eight days ago the latest bombshell dropped: Arriva, the current franchisee, pulled its bid. Few tears will be shed at this revelation. Some commuters might even rejoice at the news, but it speaks to a deeper problem with the handling of the procurement process. The only reasonable conclusion is that Arriva’s decision to pull its bid to run the next Welsh rail franchise is largely due to the whole bungled process. Rumours are circulating that other companies are also teetering on the brink of pulling out of the franchise bid. To be fair, who can blame them? They do not know who they should be dealing with, the timetable of the process and, to put it frankly, whether this franchise will even go ahead.

In this final part of my speech, I want to understand what the next steps might be and seek clarity for commuters, train companies and perhaps even for Labour Ministers back home, as they seem incapable of getting these answers from the Department for Transport themselves. Devolution of the franchise was first on the list of hurdles in the Welsh Assembly Infrastructure Committee’s June report. Let us be frank: we are approaching a situation where the whole thing could collapse. I do not want to see that and I am sure the Minister does not want to either. I hope in his response he will be able to offer assurances that the powers will be devolved in the coming days, but contingencies must be made clear. Can the Minister confirm whether there has been any exploration of an interim arrangement with the existing operator to continue running their franchise under a direct award or—as is written into this franchise contract—there is an extension of seven “reporting periods” at the end of the franchise, which could take the existing franchise into spring 2019?

The option which I prefer, and I am sure the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) would prefer, and which has always been the policy of my party, is a truly nationalised rail operator. Under the Railways Act 1993, it falls on the relevant authority to run franchises where there is no franchise agreement in place. These are known as the operator of last resort powers. The botched devolution job means there is no clarity on who exactly the relevant authority is in this case. Can the Minister confirm whether he understands the Welsh Government or Westminster to be the relevant authority?

On a more general point, my speech has been peppered with technicalities, dates and jargon, but the events surrounding the devolution of the franchise are symbolic of a wider and more fundamental symptom suffered by my country. Westminster does not care about Wales and a lethargic Labour party passively watches our managed decline. The examples can be technical, but the effects are tangible. Our society suffers at the hands of an apathetic Westminster and an inert Labour Welsh Government. The handling of the devolution of the franchise is yet again a reason for Wales to wonder why Westminster clings so tightly to our reins, when all we want is the ability to stand on our own two feet. Diolch yn fawr.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Albert Owen

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is a pertinent point, and I am happy that colleagues will support us in the Lobby if we get the opportunity to vote on my new clause later.

The UK Government’s White Paper, which was published only last Thursday, was a complete whitewash in relation to those pledges. Unsurprisingly, it made no commitment to uphold the funding pledges, which were no doubt very persuasive in Wales during the referendum. Let us remember that the estimated net benefit—I emphasise “net benefit”—to Wales from the EU in 2014 was around £245 million, or £79 per head. We will not accept a penny less from the UK Government, because that was the specific pledge by the leave campaign in our country. Not one single penny less.

Just over a week before the vote, amid huge publicity, the leader of the Conservatives in Wales said that

“funding for each and every part of the UK, including Wales, would be safe if we vote to leave.”

That statement was made following an open letter written by Tory Front Benchers, some of whom have now been promoted to the Cabinet and hold Brexit portfolios. They made the same promise.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I, too, will be supporting the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 158 in the Lobby this evening if a vote is called. I would also have supported new clause 157. He is making an important point. Does he agree that the Joint Ministerial Committee would be a vehicle for the Welsh First Minister, on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, to make that case and hold the Government to account?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I will be supporting the new clause tabled by the Labour Front Bench if it is pushed to a vote. He is completely right. At the moment, UK Government Ministers might as well go into those Joint Ministerial Committee meetings with their iPods on and their headphones in. They are not going to listen to a word that the Welsh or Scottish Governments say, or to the representatives from Northern Ireland. There is no leverage to what is discussed in those JMC meetings. We need to firm up those processes.

The extreme Brexit favoured by the UK Government takes no account of the geographical economic divergence that exists within the British state. The Welsh economy is heavily driven by exports, and two thirds of our goods go to Europe. To willingly block those vital economic arteries would be an act of calamitous self-harm, given that 200,000 jobs in Wales are sustained by our trade with Europe. As someone whose job it is to represent the interests of my constituents and compatriots, I have a responsibility to do all I can to mitigate this Bill’s intentions.

That brings me to new clause 159, which would require the Government to explore a differentiated deal for Wales within the European economic area. The unprecedented task that lies ahead for the UK will inevitably require flexibility and, indeed, imagination. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that if the UK Government give us the assurance that Wales will keep its membership of the single market and the customs union, we will support the Bill. The Government have already conceded, rightly, that flexibility will be required to avoid a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The joint Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper makes the case for the continuation of full participation—that is, membership—for Wales in the single market and the customs union.

Wales Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Albert Owen

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is another valid dimension. It was clear that the younger generations were very much in favour of remaining a part of the EU. The morning after the referendum, I was the guest speaker at the graduation service of Coleg Sir Gâr, the local further education college, and in particular the Gelli Aur campus, which specialises in agriculture courses. I started my speech by apologising to those generations of young people—mostly 16 and 17-year-olds—who had been unable to participate in the referendum but for whom the decision made on their behalf will arguably leave a far greater legacy.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

A consensus seems to be growing here on 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote. Rather than Wales mirroring some other parts of the United Kingdom, we should be radical in moving forward even further by talking about compulsory voting in Wales. Seventy four per cent. voted in a referendum, but if those others who felt disfranchised voted, the result might have been different. What we are talking about is radical Welsh politics.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention, and what the hon. Gentleman says will be part of the debate as we go forward. I recently took part in a radio programme with the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), and we had a vibrant debate on this issue. My one concern about compulsory voting is that it moves voting from being a civic right to a civic responsibility, which is a very big change in attitude. I am not saying that I have closed my mind to it, and I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central made some persuasive arguments, but I shall reserve my judgment until the time comes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

I fear that we are getting into a debate about PR, and my party is strongly of the view that we need to go down that road. We will have to address these issues as we go along. The last election was a wake-up call where one party had 50% of the seats but only 30% of the votes.

[Albert Owen]

Speaking as someone who was involved in the first referendum, I know that this was a big issue. It was argued that the Assembly would be different and we would have a hybrid system, which was put in place to help the smaller parties such as the hon. Gentleman’s party. It is not the fault of the Welsh electorate that they do not vote for his party or do not like it. We have moved considerably from this place, which has a full first-past-the-post system, to a hybrid system. In north Wales, Labour topped the poll but did not get one Member.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention. The people of Wales will listen to what politicians have said today, and they will make their own judgment. My personal view, for what it is worth, is that the number of seats that a party has within an electoral body should reflect the percentage of votes they receive during the election. We will see how things develop in Wales.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd spoke at some length about clause 10. Needless to say, I agree with every word she says, and I will join her in the Lobby to vote against it later this evening.

Amendment 33, tabled by my hon. Friends, is designed to ensure that the legislature of Wales has to authorise the drawing of money from the Consolidated Fund and that such funds can be used only for the purposes for which they were authorised. This is straightforward, and I hope that the UK Government will accept it.

Under clause 14, the Secretary of State will no longer be statutorily bound to visit the National Assembly each year. This is a positive move, which equalises the relationship between the Westminster Parliament and the National Assembly. It might also save the embarrassment of some of the less active Members in the National Assembly. I seem to recall a story from the last Assembly in which the previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones)—I am disappointed that he is not in his place, because I think he would have enjoyed this—had spoken more words than the previous Assembly Member for Islwyn.

Amendments 38 to 45 are technical, and I hope the UK Government will accept them. They deal with the naming of the legislature and the establishment of a legislatures commission in the event of a name change, and ensures that the provisions in clause 15 extend to both the English language and the Welsh language names.

Wales Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Albert Owen

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

Earlier the hon. Gentleman referred to something similar to what I believe in, which is a confederal system in the UK. Is he now advocating that and not independence? Is that his party’s line?

[Jonathan Edwards]

As I said when I made those remarks, I always try to be helpful in my politics. My party’s position is independence for my country—

[Albert Owen]

Say it.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I have made that clear in my contribution. However, if I was a Unionist such as the hon. Gentleman, I would make exactly the same argument as him, and I commend him for it.

Before I was rudely interrupted by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), I was talking about the boundary review. Wales is about to lose more than a quarter of our political representation. To put that in context, Wales will experience the largest proportional cut in representation here while simultaneously being denied powers and responsibility for our devolved Government. If the boundary changes go through without our significantly equalising the Welsh settlement with that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, there will be a further democratic deficit. With that in mind, I will vote against the boundary changes unless we have the same powers as Scotland.

The constitution of the UK is rapidly changing. This is a time for bold and visionary acts in the finest traditions of this House. I am afraid that the Bill does not reflect the realities we face, nor does it respond to the practical problems that arise from tinkering with the settlement. We will endeavour to strengthen it during its passage so that our country is not treated like a second-class nation.

Wales Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Albert Owen

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. When this matter was last discussed in the Welsh Grand Committee, I was the Chair of the Committee, so I had to remain impartial. I listened to a lot of the arguments, however, and this is my opportunity to express my views on the Bill and the devolution settlement.

I am a proud devolutionist, and I am proud of my party’s record on devolution. That process did not begin with the setting up of the National Assembly for Wales. One of my predecessors, the late Cledwyn Hughes, was one of the architects of devolution. He was the second Secretary of State for Wales after Jim Griffiths, but before Labour came into Government in 1964 he worked in opposition to establish the first Welsh Office and to devolve powers and responsibilities. Democratic devolution then came into being with the setting up of the National Assembly.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), and I agree with a lot of what he said. He asked about the weather in Llandudno. It has not been widely reported that unity broke out among members of the Labour party in Llandudno. Whether he perceived clarity or not, we certainly had an excellent conference, with unified speeches from the leader of the Labour party in Wales—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) seems to disagree with me on that. I do not think he was there, although I am sure he takes a great deal of interest in the matter.

At our conference, we saw a First Minister and a future Prime Minister agreeing on huge policy issues, including reserved powers. That was radical, and in the tradition of Labour pro-devolutionism. It was an excellent conference, and coming after the Plaid Cymru conference, it is not difficult to compare a good one with a car crash. We heard that Plaid Cymru members had fallen out over issues such as what constituted Welshness. By contrast, we were talking about the economy and the constitutional measures that a Labour Government would introduce, so if the hon. Member for Ceredigion wants reserved powers, I suggest that he tell the good people of Ceredigion to vote Labour. A Labour Government would deliver that. We would deliver on our promise, just as we delivered on our promise to establish a National Assembly for Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales and I go back a long way politically. When we were debating the setting up of the National Assembly for Wales, we were on different sides of the argument, and I remember that we were on a panel with Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas. Of the three of us, only two agreed with devolution; the third did not. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has now progressed in the right direction, however.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the First Minister now supports the lockstep proposals of the UK Government, which the shadow Secretary of State advocated earlier? That is not what the First Minister has been telling the people of Wales for the past three or four months.

[Albert Owen]

The shadow Secretary of State set out the Labour party’s position in Llandudno on Sunday, and that is the position that we will proudly put to the electorate in a forthcoming election. I understand that Plaid Cymru does not support devolution per se; it supports it as a vehicle for independence. That is the difference between us. Yes, we have grown-up conversations in Wales, but the people of Wales elect more Labour representatives than Plaid Cymru representatives. Plaid Cymru is the “party of Wales” in name only. Yes, the Labour party has differences of opinion within it—any modern democratic party does—but we now have a clear position, following our conference, and I hope that we will go on to get a majority Government in this place so that we can change the laws to best reflect the views of the people of Wales.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) to an extent. Whether we like it or not, the people of Wales are not that interested in Silk; they are not that interested in constitutional issues. I and many others have supported devolution for many years, but I understand that not everyone is interested in it. Politics is the art of the possible. I would have liked an Assembly to be established in 1979, but the proposal was defeated convincingly by the people of Wales. I would have liked to see a stronger Assembly in 1997, but I was far more pragmatic and mature by then, and I realised that we pro-devolutionists needed to compromise in order to get the measure through.

I do not accept what the hon. Member for Ceredigion said about referendum fatigue. It is fundamentally important, when we are proposing major constitutional changes such as the setting up of new bodies in Scotland, Wales and other parts, including London, that we should have a referendum. Equally, it is right to hold a referendum when we are proposing to give more law-making powers to the National Assembly for Wales. We should also have one to decide the changes on taxation. I would have liked to see those powers established in 1997, but I know that we would have lost the referendum if we had proposed them at the time.

[Albert Owen]

I tried to answer that question earlier when I said that a referendum should be held when we are proposing a huge political or constitutional change. These taxation measures constitute such a change, as did the devolution of law-making powers and the setting up of the Assembly itself. When it comes to significant constitutional changes, I believe in trusting the people. I did disagree with the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) when he said, “We’ll just take the recommendations of a commission.” We are a democratic body; we are elected Members of Parliament; we represent people and communities, and we are here to represent their views. Again, I think Plaid Cymru has been caught out slightly, because it is saying, “We want all the bits of the Silk commission, but we do not want the referendum.” Either you want it all or you do not want it all—it is pretty simple.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Surely the powers cannot be used on the lockstep. That is Labour’s position: those bands cannot be varied because of the lockstep. The referendum should therefore be on the need to remove the lockstep to allow the bands to be varied. Surely that should be the basis of the referendum; it should not be a referendum on devolving the lockstep.

[Albert Owen]

That is the hon. Gentleman’s position. I have made my position clear: when there are major changes on taxation, there should be a referendum. I am therefore supporting that measure in the Bill. We would lose most of the people of Carmarthen and Ynys Môn if we started talking about the lockstep. The serious problem we have is that when we eventually go to the people of Wales on a taxation referendum, we have to boil it down—[Interruption.] If he stops chuntering from a sedentary position, I will try to give an answer on a simple question that we understand in the first place. The beauty of a referendum is that we need to boil things down. The question as it is framed now would not be easy, which is what we have to work towards. That is where I am coming from on this issue.

It is very logical that the Bill proposes borrowing powers for the National Assembly for Wales. The hon. Member for Ceredigion talked about the abilities of community councils and town councils to borrow in a way that the Assembly cannot, so this is a natural progression. Many things such as stamp duty and landfill tax can produce the revenue streams to help with that borrowing. It is eminently sensible that that happens.

I repeat that we need to consult the people of Wales and have a referendum on the income tax issues in the Bill, so I support that approach. Not having those things would be out of sync with what we have done in the past, when we set up the Assembly and when we had a referendum on increasing its law-making powers. I supported both those referendums and I would support this one, too, but we have to get it right. I am as confused as anybody who has spoken in this debate about exactly what we are going to be telling the people of Wales. I know this is only a Second Reading and it is right that we debate these issues, but in Committee—that is the place to do it—we shall deal with the nitty-gritty of what the taxation actually means. The figures produced in the explanatory notes and in the Government’s various Command Papers are not easy to digest, so we need to have that scrutiny, which this House of Commons does best, before we finalise things.

There has been much debate about the position outlined by my Front-Bench team, and on that I agree slightly with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards); those details need fleshing out just as much as any others. The purpose of parliamentary democracy is to have that debate and that parliamentary scrutiny, so that is the way we need to move forward. I have been consistent on the referendums issue, and I believe we must have a referendum if we are to move to being able to vary income tax powers or whatever the end result is of this Bill going through both Houses of Parliament.

I wish to discuss the electoral arrangements, as I am slightly confused as to why these provisions have been bolted on to this financial measure, other than to suit a deal done between the coalition parties and Plaid Cymru to try to get the Bill through. We have heard about the Government of Wales Acts. I supported doing away with the dual candidacy because I thought it was unfair and undemocratic that a person who stands for election in a seat and loses, often comfortably, can then arrive in that democratic institution through another means—that is fundamentally wrong.

When we had a debate in this House some time ago—I cannot cite the Hansard reference—the Under-Secretary told us about the consultation exercise, when people were in favour of keeping the ban on dual mandates.

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Albert Owen

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

It is important to have a Welsh debate in the House of Commons. As you will know, Mr Speaker, when one goes into Central Lobby, one is surrounded by four large arches. The arch that leads to the House of Commons has St David on it. It is therefore appropriate that we are having our St David’s day debate in the House of Commons this year.

Although time is a bit tight, I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. I make a plea to the Government and to their successors—I hope that there is a Government of a different colour in 2015—to reinstate a Welsh affairs debate in Government time, because post-devolution, there are many important matters that Welsh Members wish to debate. Many of those are cross-border issues, many concern reserved powers and many reach us as individual Members of Parliament in our constituency surgeries and when we make visits in the constituency. This is a traditional debate that goes back many decades.

I believe Wales to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, and I hope that it will remain so for many decades and centuries. I speak in this debate, as will many Members, as a Welsh patriot—an outward-looking Welsh patriot. I make no apology for being pro-Welsh, pro-British and pro-European Union. Above all, I am pro-Anglesey. I am proud to represent the island community of Ynys Môn, the mother of Wales, in this, the mother of all Parliaments. I see no contradiction in being pro-Welsh, pro-British and pro-European Union. I feel no less Welsh by being pro-United Kingdom and no less British by being pro-European Union.

It is in that context that I want to make my opening remarks, particularly as this Parliament has been preoccupied with separation and divorce. I am speaking, of course, of the Scottish debate about independence, which has been pushed by the nationalist agenda. I am also speaking about the separatists on the Conservative Back Benches, who have been pushing for exit from the European Union. Indeed, they are the tail that has wagged the Conservative dog throughout most of this Parliament, with the Prime Minister trying to steer a very—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) want to intervene? He is making remarks from a sedentary position.

I accept that those are legitimate debates to have in this House and in this democratic society. Nevertheless, I believe, as I am sure do many Members, that those debates are causing instability in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. I believe that to be bad for business and bad for our economies, whether local, regional or national. We heard just today that businesses in Scotland are concerned about the instability that is being caused by those debates and the movements towards separation and divorce.

The head of Shell has warned quite clearly that the talk of separation is causing a lack of the stability and clarity that businesses need in order to invest. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) says “Dutch” from a sedentary position. I worked as a British merchant seaman and many people from Wales work on British vessels. We are proud to serve under the red ensign as British seamen, bringing many pounds to the local economies throughout Wales.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House what the credit agency Standard & Poor’s recently said about the finances of an independent Scotland, and about its take on the current finances of the British state?

[Albert Owen]

I will make my own speech. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such points—[Interruption.] He can laugh, but I do not speak for the Scottish National party, and I certainly do not speak with a nationalist agenda. That is the point I am making, and I will make my own speech in my own way. The hon. Gentleman prompts me, however, to mention local independent polls from Wales and the United Kingdom, which claim that some 5% of the population of Wales want an independent Wales, and separation and divorce from the United Kingdom. The question was asked because of Scottish independence, and I accept that the figure rises to 7% if Scotland were to have independence. I make that remark because I feel it is important for the 95% who want to remain in the United Kingdom to have their voices raised in this House in a proud and co-operative way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman says, “Tag team!”, and I will come to that issue in a moment.

Yesterday, I and other Members of Parliament held an event on Britain’s nuclear future. None of the Plaid Cymru Members came, but it was attended by apprentices and graduates from Wales, who have jobs on the Wylfa site. The Welsh Government, the local authority and the UK Government have put aside moneys to train young people, giving them the opportunity to have a quality job. This policy, which is supported by parties in this House, will enhance local economies. It will benefit my area socially and culturally, as it has done for some 40 years.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is always kind when somebody seeks to intervene. Energy is a contentious issue, and there are divisions within all parties on every aspect of energy policy. For instance, how would he be responding if the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was in his place this afternoon?

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and I do not agree on nuclear power, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman who does agree: the Labour leader in the authority in my constituency, the Labour First Minister of Wales and the Leader of the Opposition, who was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The Labour party has continuity, with party leaders proudly saying what its policy is. The leader of Plaid Cymru does not support this policy, but expects the people in my area to vote for it, which is disingenuous and wrong. Energy is a big issue in general election campaigns. Of course there are individuals, but we expect leaders to provide leadership and clarity not just for the country but for investment.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has come in and is speaking rather loudly. Does he want to intervene?

Energy Prices

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Albert Owen

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State. I had intended to be non-partisan and speak in favour of consensus, but having listened to his opening remarks, I will find it difficult to be disciplined and keep to that line, because he rewrote the recent history of energy. I certainly take no lectures from him on nuclear power and many other things. I have stood on the Government side of the House and argued in favour of nuclear power, the base load, renewables and energy efficiency, and I see no contradiction between them. For him to try to knock the policy of the Labour party when it was in government is nothing short of cheek.

I welcome the debate because energy prices are the big issue for constituents and consumers across the country. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) chose this topic for her first outing as shadow Secretary of State. She gave an excellent overview of what has happened in recent weeks.

I did not want to be partisan, because the issue is too important for that, but when people criticise what happened in the past 13 years, I must remind them that, since 2009, there has been a trend of high gas and electricity price rises. The rise in 2008-09 was seen as a one-off resulting from a peak oil situation. In 2009-10 prices came down considerably. In 2009, gas prices rose by 51% in a single year and electricity prices also rose considerably, but the following year, when the wholesale price was half what it had been at its peak, prices came down by only 6% and 9% respectively. We have seen since then a trend of double-digit rises that are hurting every household in the country. That is why the House is right to debate the matter and look for ways to help.

I am very disappointed with the summit. I tabled a question last Friday, without knowing that there was to be a summit, asking when the Secretary of State last met the big six energy companies. He has partly answered that question, but I am disappointed that he did not ask them whether they would freeze their prices in future and what they would do to bring them down. The duty of the Secretary of State is to put the consumer’s view to those companies.

Our constituents are right to be annoyed by the fact that those companies’ profits have increased in the past few months from £15 to £125 for each household. I want to make it clear that I am not against energy companies making profits or having healthy balance sheets, because we need them to reinvest in our infrastructure as we move to a low-carbon economy, but I find it very upsetting that they claim that the wholesale price is high and put their prices up, but when the wholesale price comes down, the retail price does not follow suit. Our constituents are paying for that very dearly. As my right hon. friend said, that is the rocket-and-feathers concept—prices rocket after the wholesale price increases, but they come down very slowly.

[Jonathan Edwards]

As a proud Welshman, like myself, is the hon. Gentleman not perplexed that Wales, despite being a net exporter of electricity—we export twice what we consume—has a level of household energy poverty at 30%?

[Albert Owen]

I am a fellow Welshman, but my energy policy is different from that of the hon. Gentleman. Wales is a net exporter of energy because Wylfa nuclear power station, which is in my constituency, generates 30% of Wales’s energy needs. If that was to go, we would be in a difficult situation. However, he is right to point out that some regions of the United Kingdom that generate energy pay more in the retail price for their energy. The energy companies will tell us—I have raised this as a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee—that that is because of transmission, but those areas, which are often on the periphery of the UK, generate electricity and send it to the national grid, but the consumers in those areas pay more for it. That is totally wrong and something we all need to work together to eliminate in future.

I wish to concentrate on two issues. The first is the reform of the regulator. I would like the regulator to have more teeth. That is not just my view. I can remember the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, saying that the regulator needs to get to grips with the energy companies and ensure that they deal with price rises. I agreed with him then, and I agree with that statement now. That is also why I am disappointed that there was a high-profile energy summit in No. 10 that resulted in these very tame reforms, if indeed they are to come about.

Ofgem has already suggested that we introduce greater accountability, greater transparency and simpler tariffs, and the Secretary of State was wrong about the time scale, because I believe that in the past year the number of tariffs has gone up considerably from 180 to some 400. I am not making a political point, because I know that many people, such as the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) of whom I am very fond, have phoned up energy company call centres and tried to switch tariffs but found it extremely difficult to do so. They have spoken to people at call centres who, despite representing and working for the companies, do not themselves know the tariffs, so the system really needs to be simplified to ensure that people understand them and can make a choice.

Even if everyone were to switch to a cheaper tariff tomorrow, they would still in a year or two’s time be paying more for their energy, so switching is a peripheral issue. We want the energy companies to divvy out some of their profits to help customers directly or to build infrastructure for the future—[Interruption.] Somebody shouts, “They are,” but they are not using their profits to a considerable degree.

Fuel Costs

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Albert Owen

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to have the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Plaid Cymru and SNP group. Our combined parties have campaigned on this issue for a number of years, not least in tabling amendments to Finance Bills in 2005 and 2008. It is somewhat disappointing that, in our first Opposition day debate of the Session, we must once again highlight the need for Government intervention to stabilise fuel prices.

Fuel prices are driven by the global price of oil and by domestic taxation. In the case of global oil prices, the trajectory is likely to go in only one direction, as oil is a finite resource. It is already being traded at over $100 a barrel. As the world economy recovers, the price will rise further as a result of increasing demand, especially from the emerging countries and, in particular, China. Volatility will only be exacerbated as we reach peak oil. Oil prices will also inevitably increase as a result of the long-term deflationary policies of the United States Government. Oil is traded in dollars, and a weakening dollar pushes up oil prices as producer countries try to make up for the shortfall of a currency whose value lessens. I echo the call of the French President, Mr Sarkozy, for a long-term agreement between oil-producing and consumer countries to offer more stability on prices.

Fuel prices are obviously influenced by domestic taxation, and it is with that element that we are concerned today. Duty on fuel in the UK represents about 65% of the price of fuel at the pump, if my sums are correct. Clearly, the higher the price of wholesale oil, the higher the tax receipts raked in by the Treasury. As is shown by an excellent House of Commons Library research paper, petrol duty in the UK is the second highest in the European Union, and the duty on diesel is by far the highest. While most other countries impose different levels of duty on road petrol and diesel, the UK’s rates are exactly the same, which means that the UK’s diesel prices are far higher than those of our European partners.

There are three general reasons for the need for a mechanism to stabilise fuel prices via control of duty. First, the volatility of fuel prices has far-reaching social and economic consequences, and we therefore need a mechanism to dampen the peaks and troughs. Secondly—as we have heard in a number of notable speeches today—surges in prices have a disproportionate effect on some sectors of the economy, some sections of society, and some geographical parts of the state. Thirdly, green taxes must be linked to clear environmental criteria, because otherwise the public will believe they are just another cash cow and there will be a loss of support for environmental taxation. That would be a disaster, in view of the challenges that we face as a nation and, of course, throughout the world.

Let me stress that we are not arguing for the introduction of something new and untested. Many OECD countries have mechanisms to regulate the price of fuel. France has a fuel regulator, and Canada even has a regional fuel stabiliser. If we were to adopt a similar system in the United Kingdom, I should like to advance a special case for south-west Wales.

In adopting our policy following the Finance Act 2008, the Conservative party’s 2010 general election manifesto stated:

“We will consult on the introduction of a ‘Fair Fuel Stabiliser’. This would cut fuel duty when oil prices rise, and vice versa. It would ensure families and businesses and the whole British economy are less exposed to volatile oil markets, and that there is a more stable environment for low carbon investment.”

I could not agree more, and I look forward to the support of hon. Members who stood for election on the basis of that manifesto commitment when the House divides later this evening.

We have had a very interesting debate, featuring many positive and informative contributions. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), in his usual ultra-detailed opening remarks, made a comprehensive case for the need for a stabilising mechanism. I urge those who missed the beginning of the debate to read his speech, and I hope one day to be able to rival his knowledge of these matters. He made the specific point that rising fuel costs constituted a significant economic headwind. Given the recent deliberations about the Government’s lack of a growth strategy, I humbly suggest that that is one idea that they should fully embrace.

The Minister defended the Government’s position admirably by blaming the previous Administration, but while we welcomed her comments about the rural derogation pilot and look forward to further progress, her suggestion that the devolved Governments could intervene to reduce the burden on families was somewhat weak. Much as I should like the Welsh Parliament to have the taxation powers that would enable it to intervene, this is a matter for the United Kingdom Government. They need to take the necessary responsibility and introduce proposals of their own, rather than blaming the previous Administration and placing the onus on the devolved Governments without giving them any power. That seems to have developed into a growing theme in recent months.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) confirmed that the Labour party opposes any stabilising mechanism. I am sure that colleagues who will fight Welsh Assembly elections and Scottish parliamentary elections in a few months’ time will remind electors of Labour’s policy.

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) noted the problems that small companies—notably the haulage industry—face in his constituency.

As usual, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) spoke with great authority. He concentrated on the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises to the Welsh economy. I echo his views and look forward to his support in the Lobby later.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) highlighted the specific problems faced by communities in the Scottish islands, and I thank him for his contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) made a strong case for the food processing industry in her constituency. She discussed the added burden that that industry faces as a result of spikes in the price of oil.

The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) made a staunch defence of the Government’s position. We would welcome a derogation pilot in England, as he suggested, because if it worked in remote parts of England it would work in Wales and mainland Scotland, too.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) is not in his seat, but he said that only areas with devolved Administrations have been proposed for the pilot. The Isles of Scilly are, as we all know, in England. Wales has been left out, but surely the Isle of Anglesey would be the ideal place to experiment with such a derogation.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I am sure that the Assembly Member for his area, who is a member of my party, agrees with his comments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) discussed how fuel prices in his constituency have reached the £1.50 a litre mark. Having visited his beautiful constituency last week as a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I can inform my hon. Friend that his effort on that issue is appreciated.

The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) highlighted how the rising fuel price hinders economic growth, especially outside south-east England and in those sectors of the economy that the UK Government are depending on, if they are serious about their stated aim of rebalancing the economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir) highlighted the huge problems caused to small businesses in his constituency. He pointed out the impact on disposable income for working families in his valid contribution.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) made an informative speech. He made a powerful argument about changing the VAT rate for fuel, and I hope that Ministers will consider his ideas.

In their joint economic declaration last week, the devolved Administrations specifically called on the UK Government to take action to counteract rising fuel and transport costs. The Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all highlighted how rising fuel costs form a significant economic headwind that undermines efforts to rebuild after the recent downturn. The declaration called for the postponement of the proposed duty increase planned for April this year. I am sure that all the Celtic Governments support the need for a fuel duty stabiliser.

In closing, I want to refer to those bodies that have contacted us to support our motion. We have received overwhelming support from many diverse organisations, such as the Farmers Union of Wales, NFU Cymru, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Countryside Association. That diversity reflects our point that ordinary families, businesses and workers across the UK acutely feel the effects of volatile fuel prices, although rising fuel duty will inevitably hit rural communities hardest.

Gareth Vaughan, president of the FUW, has written to say how “grossly unfair” it is that we in the UK pay more than any other country for our fuel, because of the “extortionate level of tax” imposed by the UK Government. He added that

“bearing in mind that there is a difference of as much as five pence per litre between rural and city garages in Wales already, the added fuel duty coupled with rising oil prices will be devastating to rural communities all over the UK.”

Jack Semple, director of policy at the Road Haulage Association, has stated:

“The Road Haulage Association welcomes Plaid’s and the SNP’s support for a fuel duty stabiliser”

since

“the volatility of fuel prices is a major issue for hauliers and, increasingly, for their customers.”

John Walker, the FSB’s national chairman, has also endorsed our approach, reminding us that

“Every extra penny spent at the pumps is a penny not being spent elsewhere in the economy…Small businesses want to grow...and create employment but the cost of fuel puts the brakes on their ability to drive the recovery.”

Finally, the FTA has stated:

“Lives and livelihoods up and down the country are suffering in the face of unsustainable and crippling fuel costs. This cost is unsustainable and...as part of the Fair Fuel UK Campaign, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, along with backing from the RAC, are asking government principally to scrap the fuel duty rise planned in April and introduce a methodology for stabilising fuel prices.”

It is not only organisations and individuals outside this place who have backed our campaign. In introducing his plans for a fuel stabiliser in 2008, the then shadow Chancellor—the current Chancellor—described the stabiliser as

“a common sense plan to help families, bring stability to the public finances and help the environment by making the price of carbon less volatile”.

In the light of those comments, people across the UK will ask why his Government oppose our motion today.