Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

As my hon. Friend might imagine, there are regular discussions across all levels of government around data accuracy and the progress that we can make with this particular challenge. He is right to point out that it is, of course, a devolved issue. We are trying to ensure that we can find solutions to issues of a more permanent nature—perhaps persistent data problems, for example—but the ambition remains to get absolutely everybody in those cohorts done within the timescale, and we are currently on target to achieve that.

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

What recent discussions he has had with (a) the Welsh Government and (b) Cabinet colleagues on the UK shared prosperity fund.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

I assure the hon. Lady that there will never be a moment when the Government or the Wales Office sit back and think we have done enough as far as this is concerned. We are always striving and will always strive to ensure that we improve every one of our schemes. Where there are gaps, which we have identified before—Government Members have also been helpful in that respect—we will do everything we can to ensure that they are plugged.

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

What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on legislative proposals for a UK internal market.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

The Government’s response to the UK internal market consultation published last week highlighted the broad support for the proposals from businesses and job creators in Wales. The Bill gives businesses the continued certainty of seamless trade across the UK as the transition period ends.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Much of the rhetoric around the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is that it is a shared asset, yet what is missing are any shared intergovernmental structures. On Owain Glyndwr Day, why will the British Government not be honest for once and admit that they are using consequential legislation resulting from Brexit, such as this Bill, to effectively reassert direct Westminster rule over Wales?

[Simon Hart]

I disagree with the fundamental premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. These proposals went to public consultation, and I will quote the response from one business in Wales that is promoting Wales, employing people in Wales and contributing to the Welsh Government. It said:

“The UK Internal Market Bill will be the making of the UK.”

It seems to me that the comments relating to UKIM are divided into politicians who are anxious to protect their cosy clique in Cardiff, and business, employers and the public in Wales, who recognise that this is an important part of the next stage of our economic recovery.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

My right hon. Friend puts his finger on a really important point. The key thing about this period is that, almost irrespective of people’s political backgrounds, everybody has come to the conclusion that we could have dealt with this situation only as a Union; whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England or Wales, the Union has really mattered. Never has the “United” in United Kingdom been more important than it is now. It does not matter what kind of sceptic someone is; that is pretty blatantly obvious to everybody.

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

Will the Secretary of State explain why the British Government, via Public Health England, instructed major manufacturers of PPE not to supply care providers registered in Wales? To paraphrase Orwell, is it not the case that within this Union we are all equal, but some are more equal than others?

[Simon Hart]

I absolutely and fundamentally reject my parliamentary neighbour’s assertion as to what the position is and, indeed, what the ambition is. Right from the start of this situation, our sole objective has been to get the right amount of kit to the right place, at the right time and in the right form. We have had huge help from across the nation, including from the Ministry of Defence, to achieve that. Even the hon. Gentleman’s SNP colleagues in Scotland recognise that that is the case. To try to make a—dare I say it—cheap political point out of a situation in which a number of people are striving to improve day by day is not an especially helpful contribution to the debate.

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

I will continue, if I may. The most important people we have spoken to during this incident have been the families and businesses affected. This has been horrendous for them and it remains so, because these weather patterns have not completely worked their way through.

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

rose—

[Simon Hart]

I will of course give way to my neighbour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Secretary of State will know that Carmarthenshire has a history of flooding. There were big floods there about a year ago, and even now some of the families and businesses affected are still recovering. One big issue is that they cannot get insurance after having been flooded. There is a huge market failure in that insurance market and public intervention will be needed. Will he press his colleagues in the UK Government to come up with a UK Government insurance scheme to support families who cannot get insurance because of flooding?

[Simon Hart]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this issue has come up a number of times in the decade in which we have been in this House. The answer to his question is yes, but it is never as simple as it seems. All sorts of contributory factors are involved, with planning being one, but I assure him that we will take that issue seriously and look into it.

I had wanted to mention financial assistance, because it was raised during yesterday’s Welsh questions and Prime Minister’s questions. It is an important moment to restate what the Prime Minister said yesterday about money being “passported through” in relation to this. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not here, but if he were, he would talk about this as being a Union issue, as he did yesterday. We agree that it is a Union issue, which is why we are working so closely with the Welsh Government to make sure that we know precisely what they need and when they need it, while not interfering with the devolution settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

No, I will not give way, because I must get on. I was talking about the benefits of HS2. Whether it is by direct connection to a new form of rail infrastructure, the like of which has not been seen since Victorian times, or whether it is by being able to tap into the supply chain opportunities, HS2 benefits not just those on the route that it will follow, or in the cities that it will join. It will help link up the UK, which will be good for the economic prospects of Wales.

[Jonathan Edwards]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

Aberystwyth to Carmarthen Railway Reopening

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Edwards]

I have a very simple answer to that problem: devolve responsibility for rail infrastructure to Wales, as is the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That would give us the key consequentials.

I will return to that point, but I want to continue concentrating on HS2 for a minute. If we consider that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority estimates that it will cost £80 billion, Wales would get about £4 billion if we received our full share. This is not just about HS2, of course; there will also be HS3 and Crossrail 2. The former Mayor of London, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), calculated that London will need more than £1 trillion of investment to cope with the extra demand of planned investments by 2050.

Just to be clear, I am not calling for a high-speed line between north and south Wales. I am not even calling for an electrified line. What I am here to ask for is a line, so that the people of my country can travel by rail between the north and south of their own country without having to leave it.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am more sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments on this subject than he might expect. He refers, not unreasonably, to the people of our country, but this does not affect just the people of our country; it affects the people of any country who happen to visit Wales and might bring wealth and investment to our aid. They do not have to be from Wales.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I will go on to talk about the development of the Borders line in Scotland, which has been an incredible success. I have no doubt that a north-south railway would be a huge attraction to the tourists who come to Wales and to that sector of our economy.

The facts on rail spending in Wales are sobering. According to the Welsh Government’s Minister for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates, Wales has 11% of the British state’s rail network, but has received only 1% of the investment—that is 11% of the network and 1% of the spend. There is no such thing as a Union dividend for Wales, and it is a record that shames every single Unionist politician based in my country—I do not mean to upset my near neighbours.

The economic consequences of that imbalance should send a shiver down anyone’s spine, let alone those who aspire to see the British state as a vaguely cohesive unit. Of the British state’s 12 nations and regions, only three are in surplus. It will not come as a surprise to anyone to hear that those areas are none other than London, the south-east of England, and the east of England. The wealth per head in inner London, based on the latest figures, is an incredible 614% of the European Union average. To put that into perspective, in the communities that I represent in the industrial valleys and the west of my country, that figure is only 68%. That disgraceful record is no accident. It is the direct result of British Government policy, based on a philosophy that the role of Westminster is to throw all the resources at London, with the nations and regions left to share out the crumbs. In Wales, we are no longer dealing with crumbs, but with the dust the crumbs leave behind.

The excellent researchers at the Wales Governance Centre have calculated that, had transport infrastructure in Wales kept pace with spending in London since 1999, an extra £5.6 billion would have been invested in Welsh transport. In such a case we would not be having this debate today, because the Carmarthen to Aberystwyth rail line would already have been built. Indeed, we would have not only that line, but the Swansea Bay metro, the Cardiff Bay metro, and full electrification on both north and south main lines. Imagine the economic productivity gains for Wales and the far-reaching consequences for the wellbeing and opportunities of my fellow countrymen and women if that were the case. Wales is relatively poor because Westminster decides to keep us poor.

The British state is broken beyond repair. Brexit was largely driven by those disgraceful imbalances, and the great tragedy of this moment in history is that Brexit will more than likely exacerbate those imbalances, rather than offer a remedy. Had the British state remained in the EU, communities in its poorest parts were likely to have received £13 billion in convergence funding in the next spending round—a 22% increase from the 2014-20 spending cycle, according to the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions. West Wales and the valleys is a convergence area and therefore a direct recipient of EU regional aid. Here we are almost three years after the referendum, and only a year from the end of the current European convergence period, and the British Government have yet to provide a single detail about their shared prosperity fund.

We all know that Wales is about to be done over once again, despite the clear promises that we would not lose a single penny—promises that were made by the Secretary of State for Transport. If Brexit Britannia is not to turn out to be a 21st-century Tartarus, there must be a major rethink of policy priority, with a long-term view of economic planning based on dealing with the gross geographical wealth inequalities within the British state. Central to that will be the need to ensure an equitable share of infrastructure investment.

Wales Bill

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

Had the hon. Gentleman been here during last night’s debate, he would know that I support the devolution of policing because of what has happened to the police helicopter service in Dyfed-Powys. It has been lost because policing is a reserved power. The helicopter services were not lost in Scotland or Northern Ireland, but the service has been lost in Dyfed-Powys because policing is reserved, and we now have a pooled service that is letting my communities down and letting his communities down.

[Simon Hart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention by the Secretary of State. His point about the Wrexham super-prison makes our argument for us. That facility has not been created to deal with the custodial needs and requirements of our country. That is partly why we will aim to remove the reservation on policing and prison services during the passage of the Bill.

My other major concern, as my party’s Treasury spokesperson, is the second-class settlement we are being offered in relation to fiscal powers. The Scotland Act 2016, which all Labour and Tory MPs based in Wales voted for, fully devolved air passenger duty and income tax—including, crucially, the tax bands and half of VAT receipts—to Scotland. The Scottish Government will now be responsible for raising over the half the money they use in all devolved expenditure. Yet, as the recent Cardiff University assessment, “Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales 2016”, notes, following the fiscal plans in this Bill, the Welsh Government will be responsible for raising only about 20% of the devolved expenditure for which they are responsible.

If the twin arguments for fiscal devolution are accountability and incentivisation, surely we need more ambition for Wales than what is currently on offer. After all, in essence, we are talking about keeping more tax revenues raised in Wales directly in Wales, as opposed to collecting them in London and sending them back. The Welsh Government should be responsible for raising the money that they spend. That is a very valuable principle in politics. We will seek to amend this Bill and the forthcoming Finance Bill to secure parity for Wales with Scotland, and challenge Labour and Conservative Members who supported these powers for Scotland on why they oppose them for Wales.

The other issue in relation to tax powers that must be addressed if the measure is to receive our support is the fiscal framework to accompany tax devolution. As we have seen with the debate surrounding the Barnett formula, words such as “fairness” and “non-detriment” are extremely opaque and open to interpretation. The Bill will put in place a Barnett floor to stop further funding convergence, but let us be clear that that is not the same as “fair”. A fair settlement would surely, at the very least, peg Welsh funding at the Scottish level, especially since that is what Labour and Tory Members of Parliament from Wales voted for for Scotland. I will let them explain to the people of Wales why they think that Wales deserves less support through public funding per head than Scotland.

Returning to the fiscal framework, I am glad that there seems to be genuine good will around a non-detriment principle, but that will need to be clearly outlined before we finally vote on the Bill. I would expect the Treasury, at the very least, to publish its recommendations in an official statement to the House during our proceedings on the Bill because Members of Parliament will otherwise be voting blind on the consequences of the tax proposals. I say this as a strong supporter of devolving job-creating levers to Wales, as I outlined earlier. However, neither I nor my colleagues will support the Bill if the UK Government intend to push a straightforward indexed deduction method. I note the significant concessions gained by the SNP Scottish Government on this issue, so I would hope that the Labour Government in Wales and the Wales Office here will be pushing hard for a suitable deduction method for Wales.

This vital issue is even more complicated than my favourite topic of Barnett consequentials, so we must get it right. We need a formula that will reflect the fact that the population of Wales, and hence our tax base, will grow more slowly than the UK average. We cannot be left in a position whereby a successful fiscal policy in Wales leaves us standing still in terms of Welsh revenues. Incentivisation can work only if the Welsh Exchequer is not at a loss before the process starts. Scotland has once again achieved a fair settlement, and so must Wales. It would be far easier to come up with a fair framework if we were debating full income tax powers similar to those awarded to Scotland—that is, full devolution of the bands and thresholds.

If the other main aim of fiscal devolution is to increase the political accountability of the Welsh Government, the sharing arrangement envisaged for income tax would continue to allow them to pass the buck. The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), said that full devolution of income tax powers under the Scotland Act would stop the Scottish Government playing the politics of grievance. If Wales has a sharing arrangement, the politics of grievance will continue. In the interests of accountability, incentivisation and, critically, transparency, the UK Government need to revise their plans and fully devolve income tax powers to Wales.

This March, in an act of blatant electioneering, the previous Welsh Labour Government published an alternative Wales Bill that called for a separate legal system for Wales and the devolution of policing. I look forward to the Labour Opposition here tabling such amendments to the Bill. If they do, I will support them with vigour, but if they do not, Plaid Cymru will do so and the people of Wales will be able to judge for themselves whether the First Minister has any influence over his bosses here in Westminster.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the policy areas devolved to Scotland that are not included in this Bill, which include legal jurisdiction, policing, prisons, probation, criminal justice, full income tax, VAT sharing arrangements, air passenger duty, welfare and employment, consumer advocacy and advice, gaming mechanisms, full energy powers and rail franchising of passenger services, to name but a few. As I have said before, it will be up to our political opponents to explain why they voted for those powers for Scotland, but are opposed to them for Wales.

That brings me to the forthcoming parliamentary boundary review, which has not been mentioned at all during the debate, but will reduce Welsh representation in this place to 29 Members. That means a loss of more than a quarter of Welsh seats in the House of Commons.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman has drawn up a long wish list of things that he wants to be properly devolved. What is the difference between that list and independence?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am extremely surprised by that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman voted for those powers for Scotland. Is he now saying that he voted for Scottish independence? That is incredible.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman and I are good friends. He is a fine cricketer, but he is also a naughty boy. Will he just answer the question?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I will take that intervention in the spirit in which it was intended. Those powers now reside in the Scottish Parliament, so is the hon. Gentleman saying that Scotland is independent? That is ridiculous. I am sure that the good people of Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire will be delighted to hear that he is in favour of full Scottish and Welsh independence.

Swansea Tidal Lagoon

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The only reason I did not mention the SNP is that I forgot. I hope he does not take that to heart.

The Swansea bay tidal lagoon project ticks a lot of boxes—to use that rather awful expression. If I make only one point this afternoon, it is this: it must not be seen as a one-off project or a stand-alone proposal. It is part of a four-part proposal for the Severn estuary. It will lead to other projects around the UK coast, and after that—who knows?—perhaps across the rest of the globe. We have a chance to be a global leader in this technology; to start it down with us in the Swansea bay. It is equally important that the Government look at it not as a stand-alone project, but in the context of the proposals for Cardiff and Newport. This is not about just Swansea, Wales or the UK; nor is it about just renewable energy, which has been debated so often here.

I have four issues that I will deal with as quickly as I can, given your steer, Mr Brady: the current situation; employment opportunities; the questions about costs, which have been reported in the press; and other benefits, which sadly do not seem to have been reported at all. On the current situation, this is about a long-term plan for the UK and beyond. Over the next 10 years, the UK will lose 11 of its coal-fired power stations, followed by our ageing nuclear capability. In technical terms, that is the same as a 25 GW reduction out of a total capacity of 85 GW across the UK. As yet, nobody has made it entirely clear how we will fill that void. Hinkley Point is 10 years off, and today further questions were raised about the speed and certainty of that project. No new gas-fired power stations are under construction in the UK.

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

I congratulate my constituency neighbour on securing this debate and on his opening remarks, many of which I agree with. The big issue with Hinkley C is the strike price. The problem with the tidal lagoon is that the financing model that is envisaged for it is the contract for difference. Does he agree that we should perhaps look at other models, such as direct public investment? If we go for a CfD, the cost ends up with the consumer. If we go for direct investment, it ends up with the public, but it is far cheaper than a CfD.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I will come to that issue later in my speech. That is an important message to the Government. I entirely agree that using a model for this form of energy infrastructure simply because it is used for other forms, such as offshore or onshore wind, is potentially a mistake. There is an opportunity, especially with the Government review, to look at other models to see whether we can make it work over a longer period using different technology.

Future Funding for S4C

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Lady took the words out of my mouth, because I am delighted that S4C is moving its headquarters from Cardiff to Carmarthen in my constituency. That will be a massive boost for the local economy, and interestingly, 30 satellite companies are expressing an interest in co-locating with S4C in the town itself.

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

rose—

[Simon Hart]

I must give way to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

As a fellow Carmarthenshire MP, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the excellent news about S4C’s relocation to Carmarthenshire will not achieve its full benefit if funding continues to fall as has happened over successive comprehensive spending review periods?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman, and my neighbour, is right to raise that point. S4C has been emphatic that whatever the funding settlement, it will not have an impact on their relocation plans. Inevitably, however, there is bound to be a consequence of some sort, but the move from Cardiff to Carmarthen is not in jeopardy and is going ahead on time and as planned.

Moving on to the budget element, we are all guilty in this House of approving of other people’s budgets being cut and other people’s Departments being slimmed down while putting up a robust case for why our particular areas of interest should somehow be exempt or shown special treatment. This is not the case with S4C. It has made significant inroads already as far as its overheads are concerned, with a reduction of 36% since 2010 compared with 20% at the BBC. Let us not forget that 90% of its money comes from the licence fee, while the rest comes direct from a contribution by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

I conclude, as we always do in these kinds of debates, with a list of simple observations and questions for the Minister. First, I can find no argument not to defer cuts pending an independent review of the specific and unique role of the channel. The review should include the impact of the channel on the society, culture and economy of Wales.

Severn Bridges (Tolls)

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing the debate and on her opening remarks. We in Plaid Cymru have long recognised the importance of the Severn crossings to the Welsh economy, particularly to the public and businesses in the south of our country. The crossings affect the bulk of vehicular movements into Wales, and they are located on a key trans-European route. We believe that future decisions on tolls should not be made by the UK Government, and that it is essential that the tolls be put in Welsh hands following the return of the bridges to public ownership.

As always—as we have just witnessed with the delaying of the electrification of the Great Western line all the way to Swansea—the UK Government’s transport plans for Wales are cloaked in ambiguity. Rather than being straight with the people of Wales about what happens after the end of the concessionary period in 2018, the UK Government have said that they will continue to retrieve costs for an indefinite period.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the old Severn bridge is entirely on English soil, and that quite a lot of businesses on the English side of the border have an economic interest in the matter? To commence his speech by simply saying that control should be devolved to Cardiff is to disregard completely those who have an equally strong economic argument on the other side.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention from my constituency neighbour, and I will deal with that subject later. It is the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s party in the National Assembly for the Welsh Government to receive ownership of the bridges after the end of the concessionary period. Indeed, his colleague, the hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies) made that case in 2013 when he was transport spokesperson for the Conservative party in the National Assembly.

The UK Government are entitled to continue to recoup costs, as I understand it, until 2027, which means that Welsh motorists may continue to be a cash cow for the UK Treasury for nine further years after the end of the concessionary period. As has been said many times during the debate, the people of Wales deserve some straight answers for a change from the Minister about the UK Government’s intentions in relation to the bridges.

Research from the Welsh Government set out that the primary impact of the tolls is on the economy of Wales, rather than on any other part of the UK. The research, entitled, “The Impact of the Severn Tolls on the Welsh Economy”, states that the Severn tolls cost the Welsh economy more than £100 million a year. We believe, therefore, that the Government of Wales should have responsibility for future decisions on tolling. The bridges are the gateway to the Welsh economy, and just as Wales is responsible for roads and economic development, so we should be in control of the bridges when they come into public ownership in 2018. The UK Government must move on this issue and commit to devolving it.

A Plaid Cymru-led Government, post 2016, would reduce the tolls to levels that cover maintenance costs. There are other overheads to consider, such as staffing costs, traffic information provision and other externalities. The Welsh Affairs Committee estimated, based on maintenance costs, that tolls could comfortably be reduced to around £2 from 2013. That estimate included the peaks and troughs of maintenance costs, and is not simply based on a flat rate per year. The figure would have to be updated and reviewed in future, but it gives motorists and businesses a close estimate to consider for the time being. Using that estimate, figures from Arup show that a motorist paying the toll once a week could save around £218 a year. It goes without saying that online and smart payments are essential for the future. If they can be introduced for tolling in a city such as London, there is no reason why they cannot be introduced for a single route such as the M4.

The option of abolishing the toll should be kept under review. I recognise that it could help stimulate the economy and tourism. We want it to be a policy choice that can be made in Wales, depending on the financial situation. We need to look at its costs, affordability, and impact on society and the economy. We would also have to bear in mind that abolition will have a more significant effect, in increasing traffic, than reducing the tolls. There would be an effect on the M4 around Newport to deal with; Plaid Cymru has already recognised that that would cost money. There would also be an effect on the amount of haulage using the crossing instead of rail.

People travelling home to see their families, as well as tourists heading to Wales this summer, will be charged £6.50. Smaller businesses with vans will be charged over £13 and businesses with lorries just under £20 a go. The hon. Member for Newport East gave the example of the huge impact the toll has on the business of the haulage firm Owens, a firm that is well known in south Wales. The toll goes against everything the Welsh Government and the UK Government should be doing to improve the Welsh economy.

Representative bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses are “vehemently opposed”—that is what the FSB said—to any bridge tolls being used to fund Labour’s new M4 plan. As for relieving the part of the M4 that is part of the road infrastructure served by the bridge, Plaid Cymru prefers the blue route option to the expensive black route option favoured by both the Welsh Government and the UK Government. The debacle about that earlier this month shows that the Labour Government in Cardiff may yet be forced to row back on their decision and implement Plaid Cymru’s much more viable plan, which would allow future investment throughout Wales rather than pumping all the money into one project in the south-east corner of the country. With that in mind, I make a plea for the Llandeilo and Ammanford bypass in my constituency, which has been waiting many years for funding to progress.

The hon. Member for Newport East has done the people of Wales a great service in securing this debate. However, I fear that her colleagues in Cardiff Bay have no share in her efforts. During the previous Parliament, Plaid Cymru submitted a freedom of information request to the Department for Transport. Between May 2011 and the end of 2013, the Labour Welsh Government failed to raise the issue of the Severn bridge tolls with the Westminster Government on any occasion—a dereliction of duty if ever there was one. There is precious little use in complaining about the tolls if the Labour Welsh Government are not prepared even to bother making representations.

Labour’s failure in that regard is symptomatic of the wider malaise in Cardiff Bay. The Government there are tired, sclerotic and devoid of vision and ambition when compared with a Plaid Cymru team full of dynamism, ambition and ideas to develop the economy and benefit the people of Wales.

Plaid Cymru recognises that the Severn tolls have been a burden on motorists, businesses and the public. We want to see them taken into Welsh hands and reduced, for the benefit of the economy.

National Parks (Planning Policy)

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the House. Before I do so, I should mention for the Minister’s benefit that I am aware that national park planning is a devolved matter in Wales, so I will speak fairly generally because I do not want to give him an excuse for not answering my questions.

I also put on record my appreciation and recognition of the important role that national parks play in many of our communities. National parks bring in people, boost tourism and contribute to the life of local communities. This debate is not about the relative merits of national parks but about national park planning, and the distinction is important because, whether or not it is perceived, local businesses and householders across my part of Britain feel frustrated, and I know others share a similar view.

I will divide my comments into four brief sections. First, the impact on businesses and jobs; secondly, accountability and confusion within the planning system; thirdly, the affordable housing subsidy, which of course is not specific or exclusive to national parks; and fourthly, the Environment Act 1995. I will address those sections in that order.

First, on the impact on business, today’s debate is fortuitous in some ways, because the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales has produced and published a document entitled “Planning in National Parks.” An early chapter of that document lists 10 key findings, and it is rather frustrating and depressing for people such as me that each of those findings is negative. I will highlight three of the findings. First, the document says:

“Concerns were raised about the perceived lack of accountability of the National Park Authorities’ planning committees and the insufficient scrutiny on planning officer decisions.”

Secondly, it says:

“Interviewees did not believe that the National Park Authorities understood business and economic issues.”

Thirdly, it says:

“There was a perception among interviewees that planning applications submitted in the rest of Wales”—

outside national parks—

“were met with more helpful and constructive advice and a more positive approach to local economic development.”

I have some sympathy with national park planning officers because, in a sense, they are charged only with the implementation of policy, which is sometimes made some distance away from where they sit, but it is important to stress that national parks are a little bit more than simply custodians of the landscape. We are not talking about Yellowstone national park; we are talking about quite densely populated areas. What makes the national parks is the population and businesses that reside within them. That leads me conveniently to my second point, on accountability and confusion.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Fortunately, Wales is a very beautiful part of the world. Some 30% of our country is contained within national parks. What impact does he think that has on economic development in Wales? Obviously, 30% is far larger than the proportion of national park areas in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful for that intervention. We can look at it in two ways. First, the inward investment linked to national parks is hugely valuable in of our adjoining constituencies, but—this is my penultimate point—at the moment there is no provision in the planning application system for officers to consider social and economic factors. Ultimately, landscape and ecological factors always take precedence, which is a problem.

Lobbying

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have seen the report; as I am still a member of that Committee, from time to time I read our reports. I take his point, but if he will forgive me I will come back to it in my closing remarks. If I forget, no doubt he will intervene.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Does my constituency neighbour agree that we also need to look at the relationship between the Government and big business? Earlier this year, the World Development Movement produced a document stating that a third of Ministers had links to finance or energy companies involved in the exploitation of fossil fuels. We have not seen much movement towards creating a low carbon economy in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman understand why people are concerned?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I entirely respect his view. I sometimes think we underplay the obstacles that outside interest groups have to go through to get to and influence Ministers. We are talking about creating not only new legislation, but legislation on top of an already stringent set of rules. Again, I am not trying to duck the issue, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point when I come to how we should resolve all these differences.

I turn to what I call “donor lobbyists”, the strongest part of whose argument appears to be the strength of their bank balances. I am interested that the Labour party has made concessions on that, particularly with regard to the influence of trade unions. For some time, a concern among Members on the Government Benches has been how we could have a register of lobbyists that did not include everybody. Members on both sides of the House have made progress on that during this debate.

I shall make only two further points, the first of which is our strange obsession with what we seem to call these days “professional lobbyists” without any real qualification of what they might be, although the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee went some distance towards that. Plenty of people consider themselves to be professional lobbyists but have many other strings to their bows and do many other things for the organisations they represent. Are they or might they be considered professional lobbyists under the proposals? We have yet to find out.

It strikes me as odd that we seem to gloss over some of the big organisations. Tesco has been mentioned, probably unfairly, as an organisation that might not fall under the proposals because everybody knows what it stands for. Actually, that is not right. Tesco might come into this building to lobby on fuel prices, planning, food labelling or any number of issues that come under its jurisdiction. We have to be careful about drawing some random arbitrary line above which some people go. Rather than re-establish public confidence in what we do, we could end up causing great disappointment to those interested in the proposals and do ourselves considerable harm in the process. Likewise, there are plenty of well financed, organised and documented pressure groups—campaigning against or in favour of major wind farm developments or things such as HS2—that are unquestionably engaged in very sophisticated lobbying.

It will not surprise hon. Members to hear that I want more lobbyists; I think they are a good thing and bring great variety and strength as long as we treat them with sufficient recognition and responsibility. Doing anything that might deter people from being able to lobby us pretty well however they wanted would be a counter-productive road down which we should not go.

We seem to have overlooked some existing legislation—the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whenever I have wanted to know what has been going on in the darkened corners of ministerial offices, I have simply put in a freedom of information request and have probably acquired most of the information I have wanted about who is meeting whom and on what basis. Let us not reinvent something that already exists and to which every member of the public has perfect access.

Lastly, I want to touch on two things. First, there is the positive contribution of lobbying, which some of us seem to have slightly overlooked. Personally, my life would grind to an absolute halt if lobbyists representing all sorts of different groups did not supply me with lots of useful, expert information on a range of subjects and completely free to the taxpayer. If we had to get our offices to pay for that information, the taxpayer might have something to say about that. Let us not for one minute make it more difficult for responsible organisations —charities, industry pressure groups or anything else—to provide us with a constant stream of high quality information, which makes us more likely to produce decent legislation.

Having read the Government’s amendment to the Opposition proposal, I am confident that we are pointing in the right direction on resolutions. We need to avoid reforms that are simply a partial list of names on a piece of paper. We must not over-regulate a responsible industry; that might unintentionally make the life of the charitable sector, in which I have some interest, all the more difficult. If we end up in a situation where people who donate to charities or contribute to charitable activity think that their donations may become the subject of political debate or some public declaration, that might make them, for all sorts of sensible reasons, much less inclined to make their generous contributions to those charities. If the consequence of our trying to resolve a political issue in this building is that we end up deterring people from supporting valuable charities, we will not have done a good job in the eyes of the public, but a very bad one.

The issue gets to the heart of the complexities of the debate. I hope we can reflect on the views held by Members on both sides of the House, and particularly the view of the Chair of the Select Committee. We should turn a deaf ear to calls for great haste to answer the question of why we have not done something.

We can see from a handful of the contributions this afternoon that we could legislate in great haste and make an absolute horlicks of this. It would be much more sensible for us to work our way steadily through the issues raised, particularly that of definition. If we do not do that, rather than having been able to tick a box and sign off an aspect of the coalition agreement, we will have created a situation in which, when the next lobbying scandal comes along—and it unquestionably will—people will ask what the register was all about and why it did not prevent the scandal from occurring. We will have to look them in the eye and say, “Of course it never stood a chance”.

We must take time. The Opposition proposal, dare I say it, is a little cynical; the Government amendment makes a great deal more sense. The Government are right not to be bullied or rushed into producing something hastily that proves incomplete. I have no difficulty, with all my history, in recommending that those who are interested should vote against the Opposition proposal and in favour of the Government amendment.

Energy Powers (Wales)

Debate between Simon Hart and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Edwards]

That would be the difference between me and some of the London parties. I would favour full sovereignty over energy powers. I will address the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises about the 100 MW level later and will happily allow him to intervene.

The National Assembly’s research service tells us that 39% of applications have been submitted to the IPC, the body that is about to be abolished; 26% of applications are with the UK Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change; and 36% are decided by local planning authorities. Therefore, only a little more than a third of all decisions on applications to do with energy generating stations in Wales are based on planning policy devised in Wales. In my view, that is clearly unsatisfactory, as the purpose of devolution is to reflect Welsh feeling and attitudes. There is no denying that Wales wants to be a greener country and wants to specialise in renewables and the green economy. Indeed, sustainable development is written into the constitution of the National Assembly. However, if two thirds of planning applications are decided outside our borders and our jurisdiction, even though they may impact on us on a day-to-day basis, that is not power devolved, but power retained. I would hope that as part of the respect agenda, the UK Government would want to address that enormity.

The Plaid-Labour one Wales Government, to whom we were proud to belong, were very much in favour of transferring further powers to Wales. They were not alone, with environmental and civic organisations such as the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and Friends of the Earth indicating their support and including it in their manifestos for this year’s National Assembly elections. The issue was raised during consideration of the Planning Act 2008, when the IPC was first created. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) tabled an amendment in Committee, but it was not moved. The Liberal Democrats then moved a similar amendment on Report.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) told the House:

“We have had detailed discussions, not just with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform but with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Wales Office.” —[Official Report, 2 June 2008; Vol. 476, c. 518.]

However, there is no easily available record of what those discussions entailed or what the conclusions were. I can only assume that the Labour Government in London denied their colleagues in Wales the right to have the powers I have set out.

To return to the 2008 Act, the Liberal Democrats pushed their amendment to a vote, seeking specifically to exclude Wales from the remit of the IPC. Labour voted against the amendment, and the Conservatives abstained. The Liberal Democrats, of course, voted in favour of their amendment, as did my colleagues and I. Those who voted for it included the right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), who is now the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), who is now the Deputy Prime Minister.

Since then, the Welsh Conservatives have published their 2011 National Assembly election manifesto, which commits them to increase the present level from 50 MW to 100 MW. Likewise, Labour in Wales supports raising the bar. Even 100 MW is an arbitrary figure, but it represents a significant improvement on the current situation, specifically in relation to renewable energy-generating developments.

There therefore seems to be cross-party agreement in Wales, and there needs to be progress on the current situation. I can only hope that the London parties’ Welsh colleagues have agreed their proposals with their bosses in London, because there seems to be a divergence between the views of the parties in Wales and what is being said down here in Westminster.

My hope is that the issue can be dealt with in the Localism Bill, and my noble Friend Lord Wigley will table amendments to it in the other place. If the Bill cannot do so, however, I hope that it will be dealt with by the new commission that the UK Government have announced will look into further powers for Wales over the next few years.

I would like to highlight a point that makes a mockery of the current system in my constituency. My constituency is home to TAN8 areas. Those are specific strategic zones, which have been designated by the Welsh Government for the location of large onshore wind projects. Where there is a concentration of such developments, there will understandably be a public backlash, and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) has been vociferous in setting out his concerns about developments in his constituency.

To mitigate such concerns, councillors in Carmarthenshire have proposed that the local planning authority adopt an enhanced 2 km buffer zone between individual projects and inhabited areas, and the proposal has great support among local people. However, even if Carmarthenshire county council adopts the policy, it will apply only to developments below 50 MW. Clearly, many developments in TAN8 areas will be above 50 MW. It is no wonder local people are confused; to be honest, I am confused myself. It is not only my constituents and me who want clarity. During a recent visit by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs visit to Düsseldorf, we met renewables investors, who informed us that having different planning guidance was a disincentive to invest.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the proposal for the Atlantic array, which will construct 417 turbines 15 miles off the south and west Wales coast and also have an impact on the north Devon coast. How would his plans take effect when two countries and a number of other parties have an interest in such a major offshore development?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I was going to say something about that in my concluding comments, so if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me—

[Simon Hart]

I can wait.

[Jonathan Edwards]

That saves me having to rewrite my speech halfway through.