Welsh Affairs

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Obviously we should commend the Welsh Government for doing that, and we should commend everyone who is lending their resources to the Welsh national effort. Wales is a generous nation, and its generosity is demonstrated by all the stories we are hearing in this debate.

North Wales potentially has a huge role to play in helping to secure the energy supply of this country. It is well placed to become an energy powerhouse, and not only in relation to what I would describe as the low-hanging fruit of wind energy. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) would wish me to draw attention to the potential of Anglesey as an energy island, which should be developed as a priority.

The Prime Minister has said it is his ambition to see a new nuclear power station started in this Parliament, and there could be no better location for it than Wylfa on the north Anglesey coast. I was once told by a senior nuclear engineer at Hitachi, which previously had an interest in Wylfa, that it is the best site he has seen anywhere in the world for a nuclear power station, and I strongly urge the Government to pursue the development of Wylfa with appropriate private sector partners as a priority. I am pleased that the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill will soon become law, as it will provide a financing model, the regulated asset base, that should prove more attractive to domestic investors.

Similarly, I suggest that Trawsfynydd should be considered for the location of a new fleet of small modular nuclear reactors. That proposal has the support of the local authority, it has significant local expertise and it has a lot of the necessary infrastructure. Siting an SMR in Trawsfynydd would present the prospect of a new north Wales-developed industry that could relatively quickly be rolled out across the country and, indeed, internationally, putting north Wales ahead of the game.

We should also look seriously at the concept of tidal lagoons. Sadly, as we know, the proposed Swansea lagoon did not proceed.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate the Labour-controlled city and county of Swansea on how they have turned around the Swansea tidal lagoon to make it a financially viable project that will provide energy at reasonable prices to over 800,000 homes in the Swansea area?

Wales Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith]

It comes as no surprise that an intervention from the hon. Gentleman focuses on his party’s determination to see Wales become an independent state, regardless of the economic consequences. As I have just explained, it is crucial to give the Assembly the opportunity to negotiate a proper, fair fiscal framework with a “no detriment” principle before it accepts responsibility for income tax. That opportunity is extremely important.

[Mr David Jones]

The hon. Lady mentions what she sees as the need for the Assembly to consent to the devolution of tax powers, but what about the people of Wales? Given that the people of Scotland were consulted in a referendum prior to tax-raising powers being given, does she not think that the people of Wales deserve the same respect?

[Nia Griffith]

We have moved on since the last Wales Bill, but it is vital that there is a mechanism to establish a clear financial framework with a “no detriment” principle so that the Welsh Assembly can have the confidence to decide whether to accept the devolution of tax-raising powers.

As I said at the outset, this Bill is not perfect and it will require amendments, but I hope that the UK Government will commit to working constructively with the Welsh Government and with Opposition parties to ensure that we deliver the strong, stable, workable settlement that the people of Wales deserve.

Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Nia Griffith]

The issue is, more than anything, the confusion. Everybody wants a clear settlement that will not cause problems. I am not the only one saying this. David Melding, the Conservative Assembly Member for South Wales Central, warns:

“Judicial review could become, if not the norm, then far from the exception. Welsh legislation would be drafted in an atmosphere of profound uncertainty, which itself would curtail its scope and ambition.”

Therefore, the Secretary of State has comprehensively failed his first test—clarity.

If the Secretary of State had really wanted to make the devolution settlement clearer, he could easily have reduced the number of tests that the Assembly has to satisfy before it can legislate. Those are the tests that decide whether a Bill is within the Assembly’s competence. This Bill increases them from nine to 13. Of course, the most controversial, understandably, are the so-called necessity tests. Quite why those tests were dreamt up is not clear. What is clear is that they will make it significantly harder for the Assembly to legislate. That is not just my view, but that of Paul Davies, the Tory Assembly Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire—a colleague from the same constituency as the Secretary of State. He said that

“it’s clear from the evidence...that introducing these tests would restrict the Assembly’s competence.”

As the Law Society said in its evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, “necessity” is not a term that is well understood by lawyers. It does not have an established meaning. In fact, the Assembly’s Director of Legal Services has pointed out that there are at least three completely different ways in which the term “necessity” can be understood. Quite frankly, it could mean anything, and the only way to establish what it means will be through reference to the Supreme Court, which is profoundly undemocratic.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. The word “necessity” is not a term of science nor is it even a term of art. Nevertheless, does she not agree that it is entirely right that the Assembly should not legislate in areas that are beyond its defined competence, so a term has to be arrived at that achieves that?

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. There have to be certain consents and criteria, but our difficulty with the Bill is that it does not provide the clarity that we all want in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

There has to be some sort of framework to define exactly where the Welsh Government can legislate. What we do not want is a situation where we continually dispute that, as that would not help.

[Mr David Jones]

I am grateful for the direction of travel that the hon. Lady is taking. Will she perhaps suggest a term that could be used to achieve the clarity that she desires?

[Nia Griffith]

It is for the Secretary of State to produce a Bill with some form of words that explains exactly how and when the Assembly can legislate. We want to see that in the Bill in a way that will actually work. At the moment, we have turned the clock back, and it looks as if we are asking for many different types of consent. We do not have clarity, but that is what we need. We have a situation where even Bills that have been passed will be contested.

[Mr David Jones]

rose—

[Nia Griffith]

I will not give way any more. It is for the Secretary of State to introduce better legislation. It is simply undemocratic to go continually to the Supreme Court, because it is not for judges to decide this, that or the other about what can be subject to legislation. We want legislation that makes the position clear, rather than having to go to court time after time.

The real problem is the sense that we are going back pre-2006, and rolling back things that have been introduced by the Assembly in the past few years. The Welsh Government have listed no fewer than 14 Acts in this Assembly’s term that would require additional permission from Whitehall if the Bill were in force. The Secretary of State has said that this is all about respect, but where is the respect in making it harder for the democratically elected Assembly to pass laws? The people of Wales did not vote in 1997 and 2011 for a Welsh Assembly hamstrung by Whitehall, able to legislate but only when UK Ministers allowed it. That completely undermines the autonomy of the Assembly and is a major step backwards. As Conservative Assembly Member David Melding has highlighted, that ends with the constitutionally unacceptable position of UK Ministers, who are not accountable to Assembly Members, telling the Assembly what it can and cannot do.

Of course, ministerial consent exists under the current system, but if the Secretary of State really wants to clarify and simplify the settlement, he would clear up the consent process. As the Silk Commission recommended, there should be general transfer of ministerial functions in devolved areas from Whitehall to Cardiff Bay, just as happened in the Scotland Act. The Secretary of State has given no good reason why Wales should be treated any worse than Scotland.

The Bill would make the system significantly more complicated, with the effect of rolling back the Assembly’s powers. In the words of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee:

“It is clear to us that the cumulative effect of the approach being adopted…is to reduce the Assembly’s legislative competence.”

Yet again the Bill would fail to deliver a fair and lasting settlement. Instead, it would take powers away from Wales and make it harder for the Assembly to do its job.

Let us turn to the reservations themselves. A primary purpose of the Bill is to introduce a reserved powers model, in order to bring greater clarity to the devolution settlement. The Silk Commission report says:

“In a reserved powers model, the settlement would set out clearly the limits of devolved competence. We would expect law-makers to legislate with greater confidence…rather than being constrained by uncertainty”.

Clarity is about the last thing that comes to mind when reading the 34 pages of reservations in the Bill, covering 267 separate powers, on everything from Antarctica to zebra crossings. Everyone agrees that the list is far too long. Indeed, Angela Burns, the Conservative Assembly Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, has described the list as unworkable. She said:

“The reservations, as they stand, will hinder the development of policy, will impact on the coherence and unity of legislation and will, in my view, muddy the waters between legislatures.”

Even the Secretary of State has said:

“When I read through the list of reservations I can see for myself that there are things where I think, you know, ‘For goodness’ sake, why is that being held back as reserved?’”

It is his Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

The problem is that we had the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire telling us that he may not even vote for the Bill; he describes it as an abysmal failure. We had the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd, for Brecon and Radnorshire, for Monmouth, and for Gower—I see he has left his place—and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West, all saying publicly that the income tax devolution that will be included in the final Bill is disrespectful to the Welsh people. So there is utter chaos on the Conservative Benches about the Bill. It is a remarkable situation.

[Mr David Jones]

I need to clarify the hon. Lady’s point. I did not say that I would oppose the devolution of taxation powers. What I said was that to impose such powers without a referendum of the Welsh people was, I felt, disrespectful to the people of Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Actions speak louder than words. The real answer to the question was provided by the Secretary of State at the weekend, when he was the only member of the Cabinet who volunteered, as many Opposition Members have done, at a local food bank. Was that because he now agrees with us that food banks have become a vital bulwark against the impact of his Government’s fiscal policies in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

I am proud to have assisted those at the Ruthin food bank over the weekend—I spent four hours with them; they are doing essential work—but, frankly, rather than turning this issue into a political football, I would have thought that the hon. Lady would be far better off supporting the work of the Trussell Trust.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Far from being churlish, I commend Jobs Growth Wales for making an important contribution. Having said that, it is a limited contribution, and the important thing is for the Welsh Government to work closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that we can drive down even further the unemployment rates.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

With businesses in Wales still cautious and a Budget that does little to help the 300,000 people in Wales who are earning less than the living wage, will the Secretary of State now back Labour’s plans to give a tax break to businesses that raise their employees’ pay to at least the living wage, so that work will pay?

[Mr Jones]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have given every business in Wales relief against national insurance contributions of up to £2,000. We have also taken young people up to the age of 21 out of employers’ national insurance contributions altogether. I very much hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome that. It was an excellent Budget for business in Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We have heard some strange statements today. On cancer waiting times, the Secretary of State must recognise that, with 92% of patients in Wales starting treatment within the 62-day target, Wales performs better than three quarters of the NHS areas in England. What does he think the priority should be for English MPs: scrutinising the NHS in their own area or making ill-informed comments about the NHS in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friends that they have a right to hold the Welsh NHS to account when Opposition Members are clearly incapable of making representations to their colleagues in the Assembly who have failed the health service so badly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) has indeed done a great deal. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about the individual case that he mentioned, I will investigate it further.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Given that banks are still not doing enough to help entrepreneurs in Wales, does the Secretary of State support his right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his legal pursuit of the European Union to prevent it from capping bankers’ bonuses?

[Mr Jones]

The position on bankers’ bonuses is entirely clear. In respect of the banks in which the Government have a shareholding, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said that there will be no cash bonuses of more than £2,000 at RBS and Lloyds Banking Group, and that the Government will veto any proposals to increase overall pay—that is, pay and bonus bills—at RBS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that certainty on taxation policy is key to boosting economic confidence in Wales. Although he has told us of his vision to use the Wales Bill for a 1p cut to all income tax bands in Wales, the leader of the Conservative party in Wales has said that he would cut only the top band of tax. Will the Secretary of State clear up that complete muddle about his Government’s position on taxation in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

We have made it absolutely clear that we believe a competitive Welsh economy would depend to a large extent on a competitive rate of tax. However, I must remind the hon. Lady that devolution of income tax is a matter for the Welsh Government, in that it would be the Welsh Government who would have to put forward a referendum to the Welsh Assembly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I was pleased that the Welsh Government recently announced a form of Help to Buy, and I hope, as my hon. Friend says, that they will align their policies with those of the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the recovery is spread across England and Wales.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Government’s economic policies are leaving people in Wales struggling to make ends meet. With average energy bills up £300 since 2010, does the Secretary of State support Labour’s plans to freeze energy prices?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sector is extremely important to the Welsh economy, but I am afraid that, as ever, it has been left to the Conservative party to clear up Labour’s mess.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Given the feed-in tariffs fiasco and this week’s news that big investors in wind energy are threatening to take millions of pounds worth of green jobs abroad because they are losing patience over the Government’s shilly-shallying about renewables policy, how will the Under-Secretary convince companies to invest in the installation and manufacture of renewable energy equipment in Wales, securing much-needed jobs and reducing our dependence on ever costlier imported gas and oil?

[Mr Jones]

The Government’s response to the consultation does just that: it provides a sustainable framework for the industry to go ahead and for investors to have a proper rate of return.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Sayce review made the commitment that existing employees in Remploy should be offered the opportunity of expert entrepreneurial and business support over a decent period of time to develop businesses, so the Sayce report shows commitment to Remploy. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about his communications with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and if he would care to write to me, I will certainly pursue the matter.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The way in which the Government propose to abolish disability living allowance will take £105 million a year away from disabled people in Wales, money they desperately need to help them cope with the extra costs of living with a disability, as the Secretary of State of all people should know. What meetings has she or the Minister had with disabled people in Wales on the Welfare Reform Bill, and how do they intend to address people’s very real fears about it?

[Mr Jones]

The Government remain committed to supporting disabled people and determined that that support should be targeted at those most impacted by their health condition or disability. As the hon. Lady will know, the new personal independence payment will be objective, fair and strongly evidence-based and will enable accurate and consistent assessments of individuals to determine who will benefit most from additional support.

Public Sector Pensions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of Lord Hutton, who pointed out that his commission felt that there was a rationale for short-term cost savings in recognition of a substantial, unanticipated increase in longevity. In practice, these savings can be realised only by increasing member contributions. To suggest that it is impossible to address this problem in any way other than by increasing contributions is frankly fallacious and deceitful, and the Opposition know that.

The hon. Member for Arfon and others asked what negotiations were taking place. It is important to put it on the record that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has met the NHS unions today, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is also meeting the civil service unions later today. Negotiations are indeed proceeding apace, and to suggest that they are not—as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) did—is wrong.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) claimed that 27% of workers will leave public sector pension schemes as a result of increased contributions. The Government have set out that those earning less than £15,000 will see no contribution increase whatever, and those earning less than £21,000 will see a maximum increase of 1.5 percentage points by 2014-15.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister understand that that £15,000 limit is the full-time equivalent salary? If a person works fewer hours and earns only £8,000, but on a salary that full-time would come out as £16,000, they will pay increased contributions?

[Mr Jones]

Of course, that is indeed the case, as it was under the proposals that the Labour Government put forward. The fact of the matter is that it will not be the case that 27% will leave pension schemes. In fact, the independent Office—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the consultation proceeding at the moment relates only to photovoltaic installations. There will be a further consultation in due course in which he will no doubt participate.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Government’s feed-in tariff fiasco risks shattering all investor confidence in manufacturing in Wales. What will the Minister do to influence ministerial colleagues to prevent imminent job losses in the Welsh solar industry and ensure that any change to the feed-in tariff is given a long lead-in time and is set at a rate that will encourage investment and not increase unemployment?

[Mr Jones]

We fully understand the difficulties that companies involved in this sector of the economy face as a consequence, but if things had been left as they were, the feed-in tariff budget would have been eaten up. There is a consultation and I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will participate in it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and David Jones

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

5. What recent representations she has received on the implications for Wales of the Government’s proposals on constitutional reform.

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

My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations, and we have also discussed with the Welsh Assembly Government and other interested parties the implications for Wales of the Government’s programme of constitutional reform. Fairness throughout the United Kingdom is the underpinning principle of those reforms, and the Government have moved fast to introduce the constitutional reforms needed to restore confidence in Britain’s political system.

[Nia Griffith]

We all understand the idea of a maximum time limit of two months for responding to Select Committee reports, but we do not have to go for the maximum; we can respond earlier. Will the Minister explain why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not respond to the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report on the constitutional reforms in time for those comments to be considered while the relevant Bill was being considered on the Floor of this House?

[Mr Jones]

As the hon. Lady will know, the Committee’s report was only recently received. The Wales Office will do it justice by giving it full consideration and providing a mature and considered response.