Welsh Affairs

Debate between Stephen Crabb and Carolyn Harris

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

It is good to see you back in the Chair for the annual debate on Welsh affairs, Mr Deputy Speaker. We call it the St David’s day debate, although this year it falls just prior to St David’s day. I wish all Members a very happy St David’s day for tomorrow—Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus.

Let me start my remarks, however, on a slightly discordant note. It is a bit disappointing that yet again the debate on Welsh affairs, the annual St David’s day debate, is being squeezed in the timetable. Two very important debates were scheduled for this afternoon and anybody present in the Chamber for the previous debate will have heard the serious remarks and speeches made in it, but may I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to give us some guidance during the course of the debate on how we can get back to a situation where we protect the time for Welsh Members to have their one day a year to raise matters of importance for their constituents? There is a feeling among many of us that the smaller nations of the United Kingdom are not being served in this institution at the moment.

Putting that aside, it is good to have this debate again and, as the Member of Parliament for Preseli Pembrokeshire, I am extremely honoured to represent the city of St Davids. We have argued before during these debates about whether David was born in Ceredigion or in Pembrokeshire, but the fundamental point for those of us from Pembrokeshire is that this 6th century monk who founded the bishopric is hugely importance to us culturally, socially and economically in continuing to attract visitors from all over the country and indeed the world to the city of St Davids.

A few weeks ago I was honoured to attend the cathedral for the enthronement ceremony of the 130th bishop of St Davids, Bishop Dorrien, who represents just the latest in a continuous line of bishops going all the way back into the mists of the dark ages to the time of David himself. That is remarkable and marks out our corner of west Wales as somewhere very special indeed. I am sure that all Members who represent Wales in the House, particularly those with constituencies in the diocese, will wish Bishop Dorrien all the best.

It is a massive privilege for me to have been Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee in this Parliament. Given that this will be the last St David’s day debate of this Parliament, I put on record my huge thanks to my fellow members on the Committee, who are a joy to work with. I learn so much from them, and I thank them for the hard work they have put in to the Committee’s work over the past four years. I also thank the Clerk of the Committee, Alison Groves, and the previous Clerks we have had, starting with Adam Evans, Anwen Rees and Sarah Ioannou, all of whom are incredibly intelligent and diligent and have made my job as Chairman so much easier.

I was conscious, when I became Chairman of the Committee, that I was following in massive footsteps—the shoes no less of the current Secretary of State for Wales, who was not only an outstanding Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, but a popular one. I knew I had big shoes to fill, but I started off with three objectives that I outlined to the Clerks team when I became Chair. Those were to see whether as a Committee we could: show relevance; improve our visibility; and, through that, improve our impact as a Committee not only on Government decisions, but more broadly on national life in Wales. In how we have gone about our work as a Committee over the past four years, we have tried to stay true to that. Although those things are difficult to measure, we feel we have put a lot of worthwhile effort into the Committee, and many of the inquiries we have investigated have borne fruit.

We have looked at some big picture issues, such as the future of broadcasting in Wales. At a time of enormous change in the global broadcasting industry, we have looked at the particular risks for Welsh public service broadcasters, which are the bedrock of Welsh broadcasting success, and the role of Welsh language broadcasting in our national life. We hope that the Government continue to take note of the recommendations we made on that subject.

We have also looked at some specific, sometimes quite technical issues, such as grid capacity in Wales. That was a technical issue for us to grapple with, but it is of such importance for unlocking all the opportunities and potential for renewable energy in Wales and for ensuring that our constituents see the benefit from the energy revolution through such things as the rolling out of electric vehicles and charging points. We have also tried to be reactive as and when new information and data have come to light on issues of public importance. We have tried to respond quickly.

Water quality and the scandal of sewage pollution in Wales is one issue that we have focused on. We have held not just one, but two sessions with the bosses of the water companies in Wales, Natural Resources Wales and Ofwat. We held the second session because we were not satisfied with some of the answers we got in the first, and because of new information that came to light that appeared to suggest that Welsh Water knew it was pumping illegally large volumes of sewage into waters in Wales.

One of my priorities in leading the Committee has been to try to get the Committee out and about in Wales. Some of the most meaningful meetings we have had as a Committee have not necessarily been with people on the parliamentary estate or upstairs in a Committee Room, but in Wales. I think, for example, of meeting A-level students at Gower College and talking to them about their aspirations, how they consume media, and in particular the role of social media in their lives. So little of what they consume through these new digital channels has any Welsh-specific content and we discussed the implications that might have for the future.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Purely for the record, and as a fellow of Gower College Swansea, can I ask the right hon. Gentleman to include the full title for Hansard?

[Stephen Crabb]

The full title—

[Carolyn Harris]

Gower College Swansea.

[Stephen Crabb]

Gower College Swansea—the hon. Lady has made her point with her usual force and eloquence.

I think as well of the meeting we had with apprentices at the magnificent Airbus factory in Broughton. The Airbus apprenticeship scheme must be the most impressive, and probably the most competitively applied for apprenticeship, anywhere in the country. What we saw there was really impressive.

I also think about the meeting we had a few weeks ago at His Majesty’s Prison Cardiff, where we spent the morning, which finished up with a sit down session with a group of prisoners who opened up to us in the most remarkable way. They talked about their upbringing, struggles with relationships and addictions, past failures and mistakes, and their hopes for the future. What really struck a chord with me was how they talked about feeling respected by the staff at the prison and feeling that they could give respect back. There was hardly a dry eye in the room at the end of that session, which was probably the most powerful and moving thing I have done as a Member of Parliament in the past 18 years.

Financial Risk Checks for Gambling

Debate between Stephen Crabb and Carolyn Harris

Monday 26th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris]

I totally agree. Anti-gambling is one thing that I am not. I am very fond of visiting the racetrack, as I am the bingo hall. My motive does not come from being anti-gambling. I want to protect vulnerable people.

The logical way forward would be to protect and proactively introduce affordability checks on anyone gambling larger sums. Those would not stop anyone who can afford it betting as much as they choose, but it would stop those who cannot. After carefully considering the evidence, the Government included a consultation on two forms of affordability checks in their proposals in the White Paper. The first would consist of background checks on those spending moderate levels, which would look at financial vulnerability. The proposed limits for the checks to be triggered would be a net loss of £125 within a month or £500 within a year.

The second would be a more enhanced check for those regularly spending higher levels, which might indicate a binge gambling problem. The proposed thresholds for them would be a £1,000 net loss within 24 hours and £2,000 within 90 days—halved for those aged between 18 and 24, given that that group has already been identified as being at greater risk of harm.

Although many have jumped to condemn the checks, it is important to be clear about who would be impacted by them. Recent research conducted by Dr Philip Newall from the University of Bristol and Dr David Zendle from the University of York using open banking data found that the unharmed gamblers have an average monthly spend of £16.41, compared with £208.91 for the highest risk group. That suggests that risk-free gamblers would very rarely trigger any affordability checks. If anything, the figures highlight the fact that the proposed thresholds are far too high and could be set at a lower level. To be clear, the initial background checks of financial vulnerability would be frictionless, using publicly available information such as credit reference data alongside negative indicators such as county court judgments and insolvency checks. The enhanced checks would initially use open banking, with more intrusive checks only being triggered further down the line.

It must also be put into perspective that the enhanced checks would be narrowly targeted to around 3% of the online gambling accounts affected. I can say at this point that it is the online accounts that are key. Online is where the most harm is taking place. It is where people—incredibly vulnerable people—can spend money they just do not have, with no intervention, with no contact with anyone that might notice a problem, and, until last week’s announcement, without limits. Online is causing harm at rates far in excess of any land-based venue, and it is important that we keep that in mind. The APPG’s focus has always been on that, and we have continually called for the likes of horseracing tracks and bingo halls to be considered separately in legislation.

For the 3% of affected online gambling accounts, the vast majority of checks would be frictionless. The Gambling Commission has already advocated for the focus of checks to be on publicly available data. Research suggests that only 0.3% of account holders would be subject to the level of checks that would require them to hand over any additional financial information. However, it seems that the smaller number of enhanced checks that would require consent on the part of the individual are being used as a scaremongering tactic to turn the debate on affordability into a controversial topic. Given that those checks have such a minimal impact, it is difficult to see why they have been contested so vehemently.

We know that the industry has stirred up the controversy by exaggerating the levels of intrusion and suggesting that the checks would drive gamblers to the black market. That loses sight of the whole point of the checks, which is to protect gamblers from harm by ensuring that they are spending within their means. Surely that is in the interest of the industry, which currently has a reputation for allowing those unable to control their gambling to gamble far in excess of what they can afford to spend.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making some strong points, and she has done some excellent work on this issue. When one talks to people who have lived and are living with serious gambling addictions, what comes across very strongly is the way they alter their behaviours to avoid accountability and scrutiny, to the point of using multiple identities. That being the case, is the hon. Lady confident that these kinds of checks, some of which will be intrusive, as she said herself, will drive the better outcomes we all hope to see?

[Carolyn Harris]

While we do not have all the answers now, that does not mean we should not do anything to protect those who are vulnerable. It is our responsibility to make sure that the system works to protect vulnerable gamblers.

It is ironic that this is the same industry that just a few years ago set out the three steps for responsible gambling, which included only gambling what is affordable —the same industry that still spends big bucks on “Safer Gambling” logos and promoting safer gambling week. It seems to be a case of talking the talk, but being totally unwilling to walk the walk and actually implement the measures that could protect the most vulnerable customers.

As I said at the beginning, we know that the vast majority of the 22.5 million people gambling in this country enjoy doing so safely and within their own limits. Nobody, least of all me, wants to prevent them from being able to do that. We have already established that the number of people who could trigger a check as a result of their spending, even if it is money they can afford to spend, is negligible. The argument against affordability checks is therefore very difficult to grasp, when a slight inconvenience for a very small number of people will protect many more.

The argument for affordability checks is comprehensive. It will stop those gripped by addiction from gambling more than they can afford. It will reduce the levels of harm we are seeing. It will protect the industry’s most vulnerable customers. Most importantly—and I say this because there are people in this room today who have lost children because of this addiction—it will save lives.

Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)

Debate between Stephen Crabb and Carolyn Harris

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman’s charge is untrue on so many levels. The Conservative-led coalition Government held the referendum and we recognise that that was a game changer in terms of devolution for Wales. A large majority of people who participated in that referendum voted for full law-making powers in the areas that were devolved. They were never asked to agree that the devolution boundaries should be redrawn. It is the role of elected Governments to make decisions about where the devolution boundary lies.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

How does the Secretary of State expect the Assembly to function as a law-making body without the ability to change the laws?

[Stephen Crabb]

We absolutely do want it to be a law-making body. We want it to have the freedom to give expression to its law-making powers. That means having the ability to change the law to enforce its legislation—I think that is the point the hon. Lady is getting at. Nothing in the Bill prevents the devolved Government from doing that. We do not want inhibitions around the Welsh Government making law in the areas that are devolved to them. However, when there are spillover effects from making law, the Bill, rightly in my view, raises a safeguard—a boundary, a hurdle—so that those spillover effects are not more than is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Crabb and Carolyn Harris

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

The information the hon. Lady refers to was used for illustrative purposes only. I think it is actually helpful to provide information based around real-life case studies so that people can understand how changes we make affect families in different circumstances.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the completion date for electrification of the Great Western line.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He and I share a total commitment to the electrification of the Great Western line all the way through to Swansea. Both he and the Prime Minister have been clear about the priority we all place on this strategic project.

[Carolyn Harris]

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State told the Welsh Affairs Committee about Sir Peter Hendy’s stakeholder consultation. Are all the stakeholders committed to the project and, more importantly, did he share the UK Government’s commitment to the project with Sir Peter?

[Stephen Crabb]

What matters above all else is our commitment, from the Prime Minister downwards, to completing the project. Opposition Members have expressed a lot of concern about the progress of the project. If they do not believe it is happening, I would encourage the hon. Lady and her colleagues to walk the length of the route, because they will see work happening right now to deliver this really important project.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Crabb and Carolyn Harris

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

We are aware of the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency. We stay in close touch with Jobcentre Plus and the Welsh Government to find ways to support those who face uncertainty over their jobs. We have just been through an election campaign in which responsibility over finances was at the heart of the debate. The fact that she is standing here today, saying that the Welsh Government should somehow be immune from shouldering any of the responsibility for getting on top of our national finances, shows that she has learned nothing from the past five years.

[Carolyn Harris]

Wales did not benefit from Barnett consequentials from the Olympics. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether south Wales will benefit from HS2? If it will not, will there be a Barnett consequential?

[Stephen Crabb]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. HS2 is a strategic project that will benefit the whole United Kingdom. It will benefit Wales, not least through the new hub station at Crewe, which will increase the potential for electrification in north Wales. On that basis, there is no argument for a Barnett consequential.