Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

Debate between Paul Flynn and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The Iraq war is one of the great disasters to befall the world in this century. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed and injured—men, women and children, the culpable and the innocent alike, the invading forces and the often unwilling defenders. Saddam’s vile tyranny was replaced by endless war. Here in the United Kingdom families grieve for their loved ones, lost forever, and survivors who served their country so faithfully suffer terribly. Terrorism spreads across northern Africa and Europe and is indeed a menace worldwide. Today the threat level here in the UK is again at “severe”; an attack is highly likely.

Compared to all that, misleading the House of Commons and the damage done to our reputation might seem to rank somewhat lower, but it is significant none the less, and damage has been done. Trust in Parliament, in Government and in individual MPs has declined disastrously, which is coupled with at best scepticism, and at worst widespread cynicism, about our democratic processes.

I was a Member of this House at the time of the march to war and I have a particularly vivid memory of Mr Blair presenting the House with the so called “dodgy dossier”. Even on first reading, it seemed to me it was a cut and paste exercise. I also took part in the enormous protest against going to war and was astonished by the variety of people joining in—not just the usual suspects but a true cross-section of society. There are many causes of the steep decline of trust in politicians and in our work, but some of the blame can be traced back to the way we were taken to war in Iraq, to subsequent disastrous events there, and to the public perception that no one has really been held to account.

As The Observer revealed last Sunday in a report concerning this debate:

“A spokesman for Blair declined to comment. But, privately, his supporters say similar motions have been tabled before without gaining significant traction among MPs.”

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hywel Williams]

I will not, as time is short.

Unsurprisingly, there is much cynical public resignation. Last summer, we had a two-day debate and there was a debate in the other place. On 26 October, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) asked the Prime Minister for reassurance that, in respect of the Chilcot report, she had, as he put it,

“a cunning plan to ensure that action is taken”.

In reply, the right hon. Lady said that the National Security Adviser was leading an exercise to learn the lessons from the Chilcot report, before adding:

“There is much in it, and we need to ensure that we do learn the lessons from it.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 277.]

Although that is most assuredly the case, for me there is a further question: who is this “we”?

I know nothing of the National Security Adviser. I have no doubt that he is a capable, industrious and conscientious public servant, but he is appointed by the Prime Minister and he reports to the Prime Minister. The House of Commons decides its own ways of working and of holding the Government to account, hence this proposed referral to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

“to conduct a further specific examination of this contrast in public and private policy and of the presentation of intelligence, and then to report to the House on what further action it considers necessary and appropriate to help prevent any repetition of this disastrous series of events.”

Given that the Prime Minister’s answer of 26 October is only partially relevant, I will refer to two more recent matters on the presentation of intelligence information. First, on the basis of that information was it reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the UK and so go to war? In evidence to the Liaison Committee on 2 November, Sir John Chilcot said in respect of the alleged imminence of the Iraqi threat to the UK:

“As things have turned out, we know that it was not.”

That is, the threat was not imminent, but he seems to be saying that a correct judgment on the matter is only possible with hindsight—“as things…turned out”. Significantly, he concluded by saying:

“As things appeared at the time, the evidence to support it was more qualified than he”—

Mr Blair—

“in effect, gave expression to.”

That prompted a further question from the Chair, referring to the

“test of whether a reasonable man would conclude that this evidence supported going to war.”

Sir John replied:

“If I may say so, that seems an easier question for me to answer, because the answer to that is no.”

The second point I would have liked to make is on the question posed by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) of absolving Mr Blair, but unfortunately I have no time.

Mr Blair said, famously:

“I think most people who have dealt with me, think I’m a pretty straight sort of guy and I am.”

Referral of this matter to PACAC will give him yet another opportunity to convince the world of his “pretty straight” credentials.

Wales Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Hywel Williams

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Another significant aspect of Glas Cymru is that it has been able to reduce its gearing and is now paying off its debts, whereas the debts of water companies elsewhere are geared to between 85% and 95% of their value. Glas Cymru’s debt is now down to about 65%. That is another dividend for the Welsh people.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. This is a huge success story. Why are we not shouting this from the rooftops and trying to emulate it? We could do that in the very similar situation of the rail franchise. Members might recall the distinguished Member of Parliament, Robert Adley, who produced what was, to my mind, one of the best Select Committee reports in my time on railway privatisation. It was published in 1993 on a Wednesday but, sadly, he died on the preceding Sunday. He forecast all the weaknesses of the privatised system. That report, from a Conservative-dominated Committee, was approved unanimously by the Committee but not accepted by the then Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

That is for the Government to say, but my understanding is that they will be devolved and that is the basis of new clause 3. Such a change took place in Scotland, where it was recommended by the Smith commission. It was agreed by the UK Government and legislated for in section 57 of the Scotland Act 2016, so if we look forward with optimism, the change will come about. The new clause would make equivalent provision for Wales. In short, there is no reason why the Railways Act’s prohibition on public sector operators should apply to Welsh Ministers.

Looking at the reality of what is happening in Wales, over the last 12 years for which financial information is available, Arriva Trains Wales accumulated profits after taxation of £149 million and paid out dividends of £134 million. An average of 91.7% of profits were paid out in dividends each year, with over 100% being paid out in three of those years. Dividends accounted for a total of 11.9% of passenger income over the 12-year period, meaning that a not-for-dividend alternative to the current fiasco could result in a similar decrease in fares.

Furthermore, public funding through franchise payments from the Welsh Assembly Government far outstripped the passenger income of Arriva Trains Wales, amounting to 160% of the passenger income figure. Alternatively, it could be said that 8% of the huge taxpayer subsidy is paid out as dividends. That makes no sense. We are subsidising dividends and not lowering fares. In summary, a saving of 8% to the taxpayer or a fare reduction of almost 12% could be delivered by adopting a public ownership or not-for-dividend model. I hope that the Government will seize hold of that bold venture

The separation of jurisdictions has been a matter of great discussion and I will not spend too much time on it as I think we are under time pressure. We have been grateful for the authoritative comments and deliberations. We are currently disinclined to support amendment 60, although we are sympathetic towards it. We were told that the Lord Chancellor and Welsh Ministers should keep the justice system under review with input from the UK Government’s proposed official working group, so we proposed the appointment of an expert panel to advise them on practical legal issues. This should be a transparent and sustained road to a solution and is also the desire of the Welsh Government. We would like to maintain the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) in the Bill’s earlier stages, but there is so much going on at the moment with Brexit and so on that it would not be sensible to make such changes. It would be rather like trying to change a car’s pistons while the engine is running, so we will not support the amendment but we understand the need for change.

[Hywel Williams]

I am genuinely curious. Is the position just outlined by the hon. Gentleman also the position of the Government in Cardiff?

[Paul Flynn]

Yes. We are working in close harmony with the Welsh Government on most of the recommendations. There is a sensible consensus between the Welsh Government, the UK Government and most parties. That is the only way forward if we are to build trust in devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

No, of course not. This is Plaid Cymru’s policy and this is the argument that has been made by various highly respected academic commentators, and others for that matter. [Interruption.] The Minister starts from the business end; I start from the governance end. The governance of S4C and how it should be regulated should be a matter for the Welsh Government. The argument is in the nature of the beast. It is S4C—Sianel Pedwar Cymru. It is broadcasting in Welsh in Wales: why should not the Welsh Government have responsibility? The case is unanswerable.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman is surely aware of the extraordinary genesis of S4C. If not, I would like to spend an evening with him going over the convoluted actions that took place. We have S4C because Mrs Thatcher was reading Irish history at the time when Gwynfor Evans was promising to fast to death. There was a long and honourable battle, with the sacrifices of young people in Wales, to gain S4C. We cannot complain, as a nation, about the way it has been funded since its genesis.

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely that it has been very generously funded, and funded without very much review for 25-odd years until fairly recently. [Interruption.] Indeed—and then what happened? The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am aware of the genesis of S4C. Let me say clearly that I have the conviction to prove that I am very well aware of what happened during that period. I think I had better leave it at that.

Wales Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Hywel Williams

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I am very happy to record that. It is also worth mentioning that Tryweryn was opposed by every Welsh Member of this House. That opposition was not confined to any one group or party, although there were certain people who led it, as my hon. Friend has suggested. I look back with pride to the time when Labour MPs and peers took part in the early days of establishing a Welsh identity, particularly in the north Wales area. We had a large number of Welsh-speaking Labour MPs here, and they could only dream about a day like today when we are passing the legislation that their generation sadly failed to do, even though they and organisations such as Cymru Fydd were full of high hopes. We are now taking these steps forward, and the dreams of past generations are being fulfilled and honoured.

The scope of the Assembly’s legislative competence in this field is interesting. The Welsh Government are seeking full devolution of water and sewerage to be aligned with the geographical boundary with England, as set out in the Silk report and the UK Government’s St David’s day Command Paper. A joint Governments water and sewerage devolution programme board was set up following the publication of the St David’s day paper to consider the alignment of legislative competence with the national border. The programme focused on the impact on consumers and engaged with the regulator, consumer representatives, the water companies and both Governments. The work of the programme has now concluded, and I understand that the evidence confirms that these changes can be achieved with minimal impact on the consumers of water and sewerage services, so legislative competence for water should be aligned with the national border.

I shall take this opportunity to mention the related aspects of policy on water, including new clause 10 and the amendments to clause 44. Clause 44 would amend section 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 by adding to the grounds on which the Secretary of State can intervene to prevent the Presiding Officer from submitting an Assembly Bill for Royal Assent. Section 114 currently allows such intervention if, inter alia, the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the Bill contains provisions which might have a seriously adverse impact on water resources, supply or quality in England. The Wales Bill would add to this by allowing intervention if a Bill might have a seriously adverse impact on sewerage services or systems in England.

In the view of the Welsh Government, with which I totally agree, the intervention power in respect of water should be replaced by a memorandum of understanding between the Welsh and UK Governments on how cross-border water issues should be managed. This was also the view of the Silk commission, which recommended that

“a formal intergovernmental protocol should be established in relation to cross-border issues”.

It also recommended that

“the Secretary of State’s existing legislative and executive powers of intervention in relation to water should be removed in favour of mechanisms under the inter-governmental protocol”.

It follows that the Welsh Government are opposed to the proposed extension by clause 44 of these intervention powers to sewerage, and would also wish to see sections 114 and 152 of the 2006 Act amended to remove these intervention powers in relation to water.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned sections 114 and 152. I should like to draw to his attention our amendment 81, which I hope will be debated later and which I hope to press to a vote. It would remove those sections from the legislation. I do not want to pre-empt the debate now, but I want to give him fair warning that we will be taking that stance, which would achieve precisely the end that he has just described.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. We agree with many of the amendments that he and his party have tabled, although we want to have further consultations on some of them. The speed at which the Bill is going through—although very agreeable—means that we have not yet consulted certain groups or individuals. We might not support the hon. Gentleman’s amendments in the Lobby, but we agree with a great many of them. However, we hope to divide the Committee on our amendment 123 later.

Wales Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Hywel Williams

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

Absolutely. It is the untapped resource. I know that there are objections to various other forms of power. Another question that comes in here is about nuclear power. The scheme in the Bill will not allow Wales any control over Hinkley Point, which is very close to us in Wales; although it is almost certainly doomed now. The future scheme at Wylfa would be outside the limit. Small modular schemes mostly start at about 300 MW, but go up to about 700 MW, so if people wanted to go down the road of nuclear power, they would be outside the scope set in the Bill. We should allow the visionaries of the Welsh Assembly to go ahead and develop power. We have an enormous resource. We could be a vast power station for ourselves and for the whole United Kingdom.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Does he find it telling that in my constituency there was a plan to develop a hydroelectric scheme at 49 MW to avoid the bureaucracy of having to come to London for permission? Now that the changes in the Bill are afoot, the people in charge of the scheme are talking about going up to 350 MW. Why should they be constrained by what seems an entirely arbitrary limit?

[Paul Flynn]

It is a great shame. The Rheidol station is of that order, at 45 MW. The stations exist. They enhance the beauty of the scene—they do not detract in any way. Wind turbines do and so are very unpopular, but no one knows that Tanygrisiau is there. The three great pump storage schemes in Wales are entirely acceptable and fit in with the beauty of the hills, or improve things, because of the lakes. There is no pollution of any kind. It is the way forward—it has been successful. The two main ones were built in 1963, which is a long time to have been manufacturing electricity from a wholly benign source without appreciating its value. We go on from there to tidal power.

I believe the people in the Welsh Assembly should be in charge of decisions on power. We can be a great source of power generation in a way that is wholly British and free. It will last eternally, and, as I say, it is entirely predictable. I hope that point will be considered.

If the Bill goes forward with goodwill from all parts of the House, we should remember the story of devolution in Wales and how it has grown up and can stand tall among the nations of the world. It is a matter of pride to see the development of the Welsh Assembly in that beautiful building in Cardiff.

We have just opened a centre in Newport. A marvellous poem by Gillian Clarke about the story of Wales and the struggle for our rights over the years is embossed on the side of Friars Walk. She writes about the Chartists who came down to Newport in 1839, with the cold rain stinging their faces and

“heads bowed against the storm like mountain ponies”

marching for something they believed in. Twenty were shot and killed outside the Westgate hotel. That is commemorated today, with the six points of the People’s Charter, on Friars Walk. She writes about that and the rise of devolution:

“…they stormed the doors to set their comrades free,

and shots were fired, and freedom’s dream was broken.

A score dead. Fifty wounded. Their leaders tried,

condemned, transported. The movement, in disarray,

lost fifty years. Then came, at last, that shift

of power, one spoonful of thin gruel at a time,

from strong to weak, from rich to poor,

from men to women, like a grudged gift.”

The grudged gift keeps on giving and now we have another example of it. The gruel is a little thicker and the spoon is a bit bigger.

Devolution and the Union

Debate between Paul Flynn and Hywel Williams

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might raise that point. Support for the status quo was at 37%; 63% of the population wanted a change, and the poll offered four choices. I said earlier in my speech that a minority supported independence, and I am one of that minority.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

We have all heard the worrying suggestion that the vow that changed the result of the referendum in Scotland might not be honoured fully. If it is not, will that not invalidate the vote and entitle people to ask for another?

[Hywel Williams]

I was very glad to allow another Welsh Member to take part, and ironically, he made a point about Scotland. He is entirely right. I wish there were more Welsh Labour MPs here to participate in the debate.

During proceedings on the Wales Bill, we warned the Government that the Bill would be superseded by events in Scotland, which I think has indeed been the case. After the referendum result was known, the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, called for home rule all round. When asked what powers he wanted, he could suggest only a reserved powers model. That is important, but it is unlikely to inspire the sort of enthusiasm and political engagement that so animated the yes campaign.

Looking more closely at Labour, it seems to have seized Carwyn’s plan much as a shipwrecked sailor might hug a bobbing, upturned piano—sufficient to keep him afloat, but unconvincing as a permanent solution to his predicament. Labour’s predicament is founded on being petrified of plans for English votes for English laws and their failure to adopt devo-max many years ago, not to mention being horribly tainted by campaigning shoulder to shoulder with the proudly Unionist Tory party. The shadow Secretary of State for Wales, who is not in his place, memorably calls himself a proud Unionist. I am surprised that he is not here to proclaim that Unionism.

Carwyn Jones made a big play about his call for a constitutional convention, as we see Labour doing in its rejected amendment. I tabled a question to the Deputy Prime Minister last year, asking what representations he had received from the First Minister on the matter. His answer was “None”. Carwyn was proclaiming a constitutional convention but had done nothing about it. Calling for a constitutional convention is clearly a simple Labour holding line. It is too little, too late, catching up on what was necessary yesterday—a reserved powers model—rather than the powers required for the future.

In contrast, Plaid Cymru last month published a detailed position paper, “Bring our Government Home: Proposals for empowering Wales”. It calls for the Wales Bill to include all the recommendations of the Silk commission, rather than the cherry-picking we saw from the UK Government, and, crucially, for a second Wales Bill to mirror the powers that will be made available to Scotland. It would be a balancing Bill, at last ending the practice of Wales playing catch-up with Scotland.

The people of Wales want parity of powers with Scotland. As I mentioned, a poll taken almost immediately after the vote in Scotland found that 63% of people wanted parity with Scotland. The Westminster parties ignore that, and it will be to their cost. They have vowed that the Barnett formula will stay in place, and the Prime Minister echoed that this morning when he appeared before the Liaison Committee—he said very clearly that Barnett reform was not on the horizon. We say that the case against the Barnett formula has been proved in Wales. Even the Labour First Minister says so.

We say that we must have funding equality with Scotland, which means that on a pro-rata basis Wales should receive an extra £1.2 billion a year. That goes well beyond the current Wales Bill. Plaid Cymru’s ambition is to improve the Welsh economy so that we can stand on our own two feet. That will not be achieved in the long run while we depend on fiscal transfers from London. To speak plainly, the Welsh Government need a kick in the pants. Growing the Welsh economy can be achieved only through fiscal empowerment.

Lastly, on English votes for English laws, there are several important considerations to be resolved before that can take place. We heard earlier that only eight pieces of legislation over the past four years could be identified as English-only. The point has been made that changes to the NHS and its funding in England have profound implications for Wales. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), of course, has many constituents who access the health service in England. I cannot see how English votes for English laws can be introduced simply, but I think that it is a fair principle if it can be done. The obvious solution, as far as we are concerned, is to fully empower the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Debate between Paul Flynn and Hywel Williams

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Bore da. Mae’n bleser gwasanethu o dan eich cadeiryddiaeth am y tro cyntaf, Mr Williams. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I shall be uncharacteristically brief because a number of others want to speak.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said that he was not going to use the H-word this morning, but he did not say what it meant. May I suggest that it possibly means hypocrisy? We are asked to believe that the apostles of cruelty, who for many years have campaigned in the House to keep gratuitous killing as part of hunting, now want to be compassionate to animals, and to ensure that the animal societies have enough money to prosecute cases. That is not convincing.

I am delighted, however, to see that the hon. Gentleman has broken cover. During his election campaign, he described himself as a chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, but he did not go into the details of his involvement in campaigning in this House on one subject alone that the Countryside Alliance took up: halting the great reform in animal welfare that is the stopping the killing of animals for fun and amusement.

I speak from a constituency that had an MP, Peter Freeman, who introduced a Bill in 1935 to ban hunting with dogs. It took a long time for Parliament to agree that the practice was unacceptable, along with bear-baiting and other barbarous activities that use animals as objects for sport and entertainment, but we have got that far, and those who lost that debate are coming back now and trying to refight the battle by attacking the splendid work of the RSPCA. It was absolutely right to prosecute—the law had been broken.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to save the charity money so that it can concentrate on its other work, he should persuade his friends to stop breaking the law. As the Hunting Bill went through the House, he and others sought to introduce amendments, which Members generously accepted, saying that perhaps they were genuine or there were special conditions here. All kinds of loophole were put into the law, which hunters have since used every possible means to exploit. We need another Bill. We need to define what the will of the population of this country is, and it is to take the gratuitous cruelty out of hunting. There is no objection to people dressing up and charging around the countryside following a trail, if they want to.

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman address the subject of the debate, which is the role of the RSPCA in prosecutions?

[Paul Flynn]

The RSPCA is a charity with a splendid record of investigating cruelty against animals. We have come to a situation—I will conclude on this point—where a case has drawn attention because of a particular prosecution involving high-profile people, including the Prime Minister of the land, who is a member of the hunt, and all we have today is the malice and spite of the pro-hunting lobby fighting again. Let them have a debate in this House to restore hunting as it was in the past. They cannot do that because they know they lack a majority, as people of good will and sense in their own party also want to see hunting continue to be banned. That ban must be strengthened and reinforced.

S4C

Debate between Paul Flynn and Hywel Williams

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams]

Indeed, I do. However, I will come on to some questions about that later.

As I was saying, there has been a campaign the like of which we have not seen for some time. A small example of that is the e-mail bombardment of members of the Public Bodies Bill Committee. I served on that Committee with the hon. Gentleman and others. I received 1,200 messages and I answered them all, which offered some relief to the people who sent them. Other Committee members from England were amazed at the volume of correspondence, the like of which they had not seen before. I doubt, in fact, that the Government predicted that supporters of S4C would be so galvanised.

I am not sure if the Minister and his colleagues knew the background to their decision on S4C—although perhaps he will correct me later. The Conservatives would have been wise to consult those in their own party who took the initial decision to set up S4C in the first place. Former Conservative Ministers took an honourable and constructive role in that decision.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I think I am one of the oldest lags in this debate, having written a document called “Television in Wales” in 1973, which became Labour party policy. It has been an extraordinary period, and the most extravagant hopes of those of us who were talking about the subject in 1973 have been more than realised. S4C has been an enormous success both artistically and as far as the language is concerned. I give the hon. Gentleman my full support and that of many members of my party.

[Hywel Williams]

I am very grateful for that point, which was very well made. As I said, the Conservatives and certainly the Liberal Democrats should have known better, with honourable exceptions. They should have read up on the history and on the conflict over the location of Welsh language programmes.