UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Emlyn Hooson – 1974 Speech on the Kilbrandon Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Emlyn Hooson, the then Liberal MP for Montgomery, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    As this is a debate on the Kilbrandon Report, I should like to begin by saying that I am sure I express the views of people in every part of the United Kingdom when I speak of their abhorrence of violence of the kind we have heard about tonight. It is the sincere hope of all those who are concerned with the issues in the report that never shall anyone resort to violence to achieve his aims.

    It was the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and other members of the Liberal Party to achieve a debate on the Kilbrandon Report early in this Parliament, so that we could adequately consider the great issues raised by that very important constitutional report. The whole House will appreciate the opportunity that has been given for a debate at this stage, because clearly the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Home Secretary have important matters to consider.

    I think it is inevitable that there should be a great measure of devolution within this country. A great deal of discussion has taken place during my mature years in politics, and there will be a great deal of discussion in the future, on the degree of devolution appropriate for different parts of the United Kingdom. The one thing that seems to have escaped adequate attention is the question of the reasons. We are part of an evolving society in Western Europe and in this country. It is right to say that from the time that Harry Tudor went to the field of Bosworth and marched on to London the eyes of Wales, and later of Scotland, were switched towards London. They did not stop there. We became a part of a tremendously expanding country. The United Kingdom sent people all over the world. It is part of our history that we populated and developed a great part of the globe.

    Whether in the glens of Scotland, in the valleys of Wales, in Westmorland ​ or in the Black Country, up to 20 or 30 years ago if there was insufficient scope for an adventurous young man in his locality he looked towards London, to the seas and beyond the seas. For the first time in modern history this country, in the past 10 years, has been driven back on to its own resources. There is nowhere left for us to expand in the world. There is nowhere left for us to populate. The result is that we have a considerable population which does not reflect the old patterns. In the old days the adventurous spirits would have gone away. Nowadays they stay in their own locality.

    A great deal of talent and much adventurous spirit is left in Scotland, Wales and the regions of the United Kingdom. That is why people now want a greater say in the control of their own affairs than in the past. The evolution of our society and the change in our horizons has determined that that should take place. It is an evolutionary process which is unavoidable.

    The second great consideration is that the evolvement of modern government has inevitably resulted in a consistent tendency towards centralised power. It is almost an irresistible force—this tendency towards centralised power.

    The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) referred to the fact that there is a movement all over the country and in Europe which is partly expressed by the nationalist parties, partly by the Liberal Party and partly by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In different ways they are all expressing a discontent with the modern state of affairs which we have inherited from the past and which suited the conditions which governed us in the past.

    Today it is inevitable that we have arrived at a situation in which some form of devolution is essential. I have firmly believed all my life that Wales should have a domestic parliament with legislative powers. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Argyll to Gladstone. In Gladstone’s Newcastle programme there was not only a proposal for home rule for Ireland. I tell the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson), who is not in his place, that home rule in that context did not ​ mean separation but a domestic parliament. It is to the eternal discredit of the other place that the Bill which was presented many times by Gladstone and his successors should have been obstructed and that Gladstone was frustrated in his intention to give Ireland a domestic parliament. We should have retained, if he had succeeded, what is now the Republic of Ireland within the United Kingdom.

    The second measure which Gladstone intended to initiate was home rule for Scotland and the third was home rule for Wales. That would have followed the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. It was the frustration of the Irish measures under Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George that led to the present impasse, which has resulted in a part of Ireland breaking away from the United Kingdom and a great deal of trouble in Northern Ireland.

    That is the background to the debate. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is true that in Scotland and Wales the same kind of pressures do not exist which existed in Ireland in the nineteenth century or exist today. We do not have to create such unnecessary pressures in the present century if we have enlightened government.

    I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). He knows that I have considerable respect for him, but he spent too much time attacking the Liberals and the nationalists and too little explaining what he would like to see implemented for Wales. Wales and Scotland are essentially different. From my many visits to Scotland and judging also by my many Scottish friends, I believe that the Scottish nationality is based more on ancient institutions than is the case in Wales.

    Scotland has its own system of law. Wales had its own system of courts until 1830—the Courts of Session—which were abolished after a great speech by Edmund Burke. But apart from that, Wales has been singularly free of governmental institutions since the Tudor period. Emotionally, of course, it was a case of Wales taking over England when the Tudors moved to the throne, which had a great psychological effect in Wales. One thing which the Tudors did was to ensure that Wales was absorbed wholly into the ​ United Kingdom. Much of their policy towards the language is still much criticised in Wales today.

    In Scotland, national identity has depended on the trappings of State at a much later stage of history than is the case in Wales, which enjoyed them, if at all, for only a short time. The Welsh identity is based on cultural and social considerations far more than on institutions, and there is a great deal of difference between the two countries.

    I am convinced that in the modern world we have all the pressures in Europe to strive for greater unity. Although I was against going into the Common Market, I share the view that we should aim at a united Europe. But we want to create a different kind of Europe from that which was in danger of being created by the Common Market. There are undoubted pressures for a multinational unit of some kind in Europe, enjoying its own loyalty among the people it will contain. But, as a corollary, such a multinational unit will be impossible unless we have far greater protection for minorities within it. This is why it is so important to have devolution for Wales and Scotland.

    Wales in this generation needs some institutions of government which the Welsh princes and the Tudors failed to give it and which we in our day must give it if Wales is to continue to hold dear its cultural and social values. I am, therefore, entirely in favour of a Parliament with legislative powers in Wales. I have always stood for this. Not every member of my party, at least in Wales, has always supported my view, but I have always held to it. I think it is the only course which makes sense.

    I understand I have been criticised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). I am sorry I missed his speech, but I was unavoidably absent. He said that I was in favour of a referendum on the Kilbrandon Report. I am. I think there should be adequate debate on the report in Wales and then a referendum.

    I was in favour of a referendum on the Common Market because I believe that our membership was a great constitutional change. I think that the introduction of Kilbrandon would be a great constitutional change. I supported the Bill brought in by Mr. James Davidson, who ​ sat as Liberal Member for Aberdeenshire, West in the 1966–70 Parliament, when the Labour Party was in power last. The aim of the Bill was to have a referendum on a parliament for Scotland and a parliament for Wales. Who was against it? The Labour Party. On all major constitutional changes we should have a referendum. I have never changed my view on this. It is the only subject for which referenda are suitable in this country.

    On the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report that there should be a legislative assembly for Scotland, two of the members of the Commission who supported that recommendation dissented on the same recommendation for Wales. The reasons are given in paragraph 1151 of the report:

    “Wales, on the other hand, has no separate system of law, hardly any separate legislation and a geographically less well defined border. Two of us who favour legislative devolution for Scotland regard these and other differences between Scotland and Wales, and the strong desirability of retaining a Secretary of State for Wales, as sufficing to preclude its extension to Wales.”

    I regard those reasons, which are the only reasons in the report, as completely inadequate for distinguishing between Wales and Scotland. The fact that Wales is such a conscious community and so needs a focal point, the fact that so little time is given by the House to the discussion of Welsh affairs, the fact that so many problems which appear unimportant to the House but are important to the social and economic future of Wales, absolutely negative the reasons given by the two dissentients.

    I regard the Kilbrandon Report as being of the greatest value in analysing the kind of devolution that we can obtain. I do not regard as important the counting of heads—seven in favour of one solution and five in favour of another. Clearly, many members of the commission had preconceived ideas and, as the report indicates, what they finally recommended depended to a large extent on where they came from geographically.

    Looking to the future and to the youth of Wales, if we are to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom we need devolution to Wales and Scotland. It is as important in the minds of those who wish to preserve the unity of the United ​ Kingdom as it is in the minds of those who want, as Welsh Nationalists, far greater power for Wales. That is why I go wholeheartedly with the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report in favour of legislative devolution for Wales.

    Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen)

    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), like his colleague the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and gave the impression that his speech was an all-out attack on Liberals and nationalists, thereby conveying that it was an anti-devolutionary speech. As is well known, my right hon. Friend has long held views on devolution to Wales. He has campaigned for more than 25 years for a greater voice for the Principality. I am sure that on reflection the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not wish to convey the impression that my right hon. Friend is striving to hold back the natural aspirations of the Welsh people.

    Mr. Hooson

    I have a greater respect for the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and his views on devolution than have most of the Labour Party. If the right hon. Gentleman conveyed a wrong impression to me, that is a matter he should have put right. I accept that throughout the years he has been in favour of greater devolution for Wales.

  • Roy Jenkins – 1974 Statement on the Kidnap of Princess Anne

    Below is the text of the statement made by Roy Jenkins, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    I regret to have to report to the House that an attempt was made by an armed man to kidnap Princess Anne at about 8 p.m. this evening when she was on her way back to Buckingham Palace with her husband.

    The attempt did not succeed, and neither the Princess nor Captain Phillips was hurt.

    I much regret to say, however, that Princess Anne’s protection officer sustained very severe injuries, and her driver, a police constable and a member of the public were also seriously hurt.

    A man has been detained and is now helping the police with their inquiries.

    I shall report further to the House when further information is available.

  • Shirley Williams – 1974 Speech on the Bread Subsidy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Shirley Williams, the then Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    I have discussed with representatives of the bakers the situation arising from their proposals to make increases in bread prices on 25th March following their notifications to the Price Commission.

    As the House is aware, it is the Government’s intention to introduce food subsidies for certain basic foodstuffs as soon as possible and, against that background, I explained to the bakers that it was my wish to avoid any price increases occurring on the major types of bread. After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have now agreed with the bakers on arrangements under which there will be no increase on 25th March in the price of almost all loaves weighing 14 ounces or more, which account for nearly 94 per cent. of bread consumption.

    I am grateful for the co-operation of the bakers in enabling these arrangements to be made so quickly. Loaves of less than 14 ounces—which comprise smaller speciality loaves such as French bread, bread rolls and most types of starch-reduced bread—are not subject to these arrangements. Therefore, there may be some prices increases for these speciality breads.

    The proposals which I am making will involve paying a subsidy, subject to the approval by the House of the powers I shall be seeking in the proposed legislation on prices and subsidies. Estimates will be laid before the House in due course. The estimated cost of avoiding this round of increases in bread prices is of the order of £21 million per annum. My right hon. Friend will be taking this cost into account in formulating his Budget.

    Mr. Peter Walker

    May I ask the right hon. Lady whether it is her intention, by means of subsidy, to hold the price of bread at its present level irrespective of ​ further rises in cost? Secondly, may I ask her whether she is satisfied that spending £21 million on an indiscriminate subsidy of this type is the best way to spend such a sum to help those most in need? Finally, is it her intention to make further statements on subsidies for milk, cheese, butter, margarine, cooking fats, eggs, bacon, ham, poultry and flour, which the present Leader of the House said are items which could be subsidised by a Labour Government?

    Mrs. Williams

    In reply to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I can only say that he will have to wait and see, because neither he nor I can say what will be the movement of wheat prices in the next few months. Further price increases will be subject to notification to the Price Commission, and it will be open to us to engage in further discussions with the industry.

    As for the suggestion that the subsidy is indiscriminate, I must say that so-called discriminating subsidies constantly fail on the grounds of take-up. Therefore, we feel that bread, being an essential in the diet particularly of lower-paid workers and pensioners, is very well worth subsidising.

    On the question of further subsidies, my right hon. Friend said that these were articles that could be subsidised; it is important to distinguish between “could” and “would”. I will make further announcements to the House about any other individual commodities which we intend to subsidise.

    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that her statement will be warmly welcomed as an important counter-inflationary measure and as an immediate fulfilment of our election pledge? Is she also aware that in certain rural areas, including my own constituency of Anglesey, an extra 1p is added to the cost of the loaf? Will she investigate this as a matter of urgency?

    Mrs. Williams

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). In reply to his point about the rural areas where transport costs lead to higher prices, we are at present only holding existing prices, but this is necessarily the sort of matter that we shall have in mind in our longer-term consideration.

    ​Mr. Pardoe

    While congratulating the right hon. Lady on having emerged from these negotiations and having learned that cheque book government is a good deal more difficult than she thought, may I ask the right hon. Lady to confirm that to have pegged the price of bread in 1970 would by now be costing the British taxpayer £200 million? Does she not think that the £500 million that she has available would be better spent not on indiscriminate or discriminate subsidies but on family allowances? Will she confirm that, having failed to subsidise French bread, George Thomson was right when he said that the French are now subsidising British bread?

    Mrs. Williams

    In reply to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, only the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party suppose that any kind of government is easy. Some of us know better than that.

    The cost of family allowances is a separate matter which we shall be looking at as a Government. We were the last Government to increase family allowances. We believe that family allowances should have been increased in the long period since they were last increased. However, that is not a matter with which I am immediately concerned because bread is important in the diet of pensioners as well as of families.

    In reply to the third point, we are allowing the price of the French loaf—a loaf which may be enjoyed by those who receive the salaries of Members of Parliament—to find its own market level. It is no policy of the present Government to subsidise luxury foodstuffs.

    Mr. Mark Hughes

    Will my right hon. Friend say what will be the effect of this announcement on household flour, and whether there will be any consequential changes on milling tails for animal feeding stuffs?

    Mrs. Williams

    In reply to the first part of the question, no general price increase has been notified for flour. Were such a price increase to come, we would consider it sympathetically.

    In reply to my hon. Friend’s question about feeding stuffs, the subsidy relates only to bread flour used for the commercial production of bread. This by itself will not affect feeding stuff prices.

    Mr. Hordern

    Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the subsidy of £21 million covers only the historic costs of the bakers and does not include the current world price of wheat, and that a further claim by the bakers is likely to be made to the Price Commission in the next six weeks? An estimate of that cost is around £70 million. Will the right hon. Lady allow the subsidy to cover that figure in due course?

    Mrs. Williams

    The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the figure which I announced will not cover any further increase apart from the one which we have under consideration. The figure which I am giving deals with the increase at present in the pipeline. Any further increase will have to be notified to the Price Commission and considered by the Commission, as was the case under the previous administration. What will happen in connection with the Government’s policy in respect of any further increases is a matter which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate.

    Mr. Jay

    While warmly welcoming the announcement which my right hon. Friend has made, may I ask her to say whether the Government will also stop the denaturing of good milling wheat by the Intervention Board which is designed to keep prices up and cannot rationally be combined with a policy of subsidies?

    Mrs. Williams

    I understand that this matter is to be looked at by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the discussions which he will be having shortly with the EEC. I take my right hon. Friend’s point.

    Sir D. Walker-Smith

    Will the right hon. Lady clarify the position, in the context of what she calls speciality bread —such as wholemeal bread, starch-reduced bread and other dietetically beneficent bread, if these were excluded from subsidy—from the point of view of the health of the nation?

    Mrs. Williams

    I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s affection for these beneficent breads. Any loaf which weighs either 14 ounces or 28 ounces will be covered by the subsidy, which is necessarily rough and ready mechanism because it has been organised in a short time. What happens in the longer term is another matter, and we shall hold dis- ​ cussions with the bakers concerning the many varieties of bread which exist.

    Mr. Arthur Davidson

    May I ask my right hon. Friend a simple question? Does this mean that bread prices will not go up in any shop? Secondly, will she keep an eye on an important fact—namely, ensuring that the English loaf is not suddenly transformed overnight into a speciality French loaf for the worst possible reasons?

    Mrs. Williams

    I am glad my hon. Friend asked that question because it is important to make the position clear. The subsidy does not cover breads which are 10 ounces and below—such products as bread rolls, French baguets and so forth. It does not cover speciality breads of any kind. Those bakers who do not apply for the subsidy will not be covered by it. I trust that there will be few such, but there may be some.

    The simple answer, therefore, to my hon. Friend’s question is that the housewife will find that the price of the ordinary 14-ounce and 28-ounce loaves should not be increased. If she finds that it has been increased in one shop, I ask her to—[HON. MEMBERS: “Shop around?”]—walk down the road to the next shop. But we are talking about 94 per cent. of all loaves produced, so I am sure the housewife will not be obliged to shop around.

    Mrs. Oppenheim

    I welcome the right hon. Lady’s apparent conversion to shopping around. Does she consider bread to be one of those items which bear most heavily on the family budget? What is the cash benefit per week likely to be to the average family on average bread consumption? How is this likely to be offset by other increases in prices, such as for electricity?

    Mrs. Williams

    I am not converted to shopping around, which I thought was one of the sillier pieces of advice given by the last Government, since so many will not be obliged to shop around, because 94 per cent. of the loaves will be cause 94 per cent. of the loaves will be covered. Bread is one of the larger items in the retail food price index. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would know that. She will not expect me to anticipate statements, not only of my Department but of other Departments, about prices in the nationalised industries.

    ​Mr. Huckfield

    I welcome what my right hon. Friend said, but is she aware that the latest published returns of the big flour millers reveal that Rank Hovis McDougall’s showed a profits rise of 17·3 per cent., Spillers-French of 17·3 per cent. and Associated British Foods of 27·3 per cent? In the circumstances, should we be subsidising such companies? Should we not be asking them to reduce their subsidies to the Conservative Party?

    Mrs. Williams

    It would be useful if they did so. My hon. Friend is putting a fair point but he is looking at profits which do not wholly relate to bread, and we are not at present subsidising flour or any other ingredients which go into products other than bread. The question of profits is a matter which will be considered by the Price Commission, but it will also be studied by the Government. It would not be appropriate for me to go into the matter today.

    Sir H. Nicholls

    Can the right hon. Lady estimate how much time has been bought by this £21 million? Roughly, when does she expect the price of bread to go up or down as a consequence of the price of the ingredients?

    Mrs. Williams

    I cannot possibly say when the next increase might be due. We are living through an historic period during which wheat prices have risen very fast. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh.”] We have said it over and over again. I really do wish sometimes that the Conservative Party would not cheer when we repeat what we said over and over again during the election—that world food prices have risen but that they are by no means the only factor in prices.

    Mr. Peter Mills

    In the interest of keeping the loaf fairly steady in price, will the right hon. Lady consider the encouragement of the use of more soft wheat in the mixture and get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture to see whether more hard wheat could not be grown in this country? Both these things would help keep the price of the loaf steady.

    Mrs. Williams

    As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there has already been ​ some shift towards soft wheat in the average grind, by millers over the past year, and we welcome that because it has managed to shave the price increase to some extent. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about hard wheat further, but he also knows that in the use of soft wheat there is a limit on the staying quality of the loaf. But I will pass his suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

    Mr. Kilfedder

    What will be the saving to the average family as a result of the subsidy, which I welcome? Can the right hon. Lady ensure that, because of freight charges, the price of bread in Northern Ireland will not be any different from the price in England?

    Mrs. Williams

    The immediate effect will be to avoid an increase in the food price index of 0·25 per cent. I cannot possibly answer the hon. Gentleman’s point about the saving to the average family because this involves each person’s individual food budget. But I have given the best indications I can.

    The hon. Gentleman asked me about the price in Northern Ireland. The subsidy is intended not to meet the additional cost of transport to any part of the United Kingdom but to meet the additional cost of the flour for bread production.

  • Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on Heathrow Expansion

    Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on Heathrow Expansion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    Our airports are national assets and their expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity. This in turn will drive economic growth for all parts of this country, connecting our nations and regions to international markets, levelling up our economy and supporting a truly global Britain.

    We are also a Government who are committed to a greener future. This Government are acting to tackle climate change and we are the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050.​

    The Court of Appeal ruled today that when designating the airports national policy statement, which was backed by Parliament, the previous Government did not take account of the Paris agreement, non-CO 2 emissions and emissions post 2050.

    We have always been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable, and delivered in the best interest of consumers. The Government have taken the decision not to appeal this judgment. The promoters of the scheme will be able to seek permission from the Supreme Court to appeal if they wish.

    As part of its judgment, the Court has declared that the airports national policy statement is of no legal effect unless and until the Government carries out a review under the Planning Act 2008. The Court’s judgment is complex and requires careful consideration. We will set out our next steps in due course.

    We want Britain to be the best place in the world to do business and as a Government we are committed to investing in transport and wider infrastructure as part of levelling up economic opportunities across the country, including investing in the strategic road network, proceeding with HS2, and committing £5 billion of funding to improve bus and cycle services outside London.

    We fully recognise the importance of the aviation sector for the whole UK economy. The UK’s airports support connections to over 370 overseas destinations in more than 100 countries facilitating trade, investment and tourism. It facilitates £95.2 billion of UK’s non-EU trade exports; contributes at least £14 billion directly to GDP; supports over half a million jobs and underpins the competitiveness and global reach of our national and our regional economies. Under our wider “making best use” policy, airports across the UK are already coming forward with ambitious proposals to invest in their infrastructure.

    We are committed to working closely with the sector to meet our climate change commitments. Our global aviation emissions offsetting scheme, sustainable aviation fuels, greenhouse gas removal technology and eventually, electric net-zero planes, will all help play their part in the aviation sector decarbonising. We also welcome Sustainable Aviation’s Industry-led commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the range of innovative action this will unlock to achieve this outcome. We are investing nearly £2 billion into aviation research and technology, and this year my Department will publish an ambitious plan of actions setting out how we will decarbonise transport and support the UK achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

    It is critical that vital infrastructure projects, including airport expansion, drive the whole UK economy, level up our regions, and unite our country.

  • Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on the Whiplash Reform Programme

    Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on the Whiplash Reform Programme

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    I would like to provide an update on next steps for the whiplash reform programme.

    The Government remain firmly committed to implementing measures to tackle the high number and cost of whiplash claims. The reform programme includes the measures in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018, which will introduce a fixed tariff of damages that a court may award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for whiplash injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, as well as a ban on the making or accepting of offers to settle a whiplash claim without a medical report. Alongside these, we will be increasing the small claims track (SCT) limit for road traffic related claims to £5,000.​

    The Government had indicated that they wished to implement these measures from April 2020. The Ministry of Justice has made major progress towards this. It has worked closely with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), and with stakeholders representing claimants, including litigants in person, and defendants, on the successful build of a new official injury claim service (the service). With the MIB, and using independent research, we have designed the new service to put the needs of the claimant at its heart. It will provide a simple, user-friendly and efficient online route to provide those affected by road traffic accidents with an opportunity to settle small claims for personal injury without the need for legal representation or to go to court. Where a claimant is not able to make a claim online there will be the option to do so on paper. A dedicated customer contact centre will be available to support all customers through the journey if necessary.

    Alongside the MIB, the Ministry of Justice has demonstrated the development of the service at numerous stakeholder events in London and Manchester, and spoken at stakeholder conferences across the country. We have been clear about the design of the service, and how we will work to ensure stakeholders from across the claimant and insurance industries are kept aware of, and can feed into, the development of the new platform.

    Despite this progress, the Government have given careful consideration to whether implementing the whiplash measures in April remains practical, given the work that remains to be completed. We have listened to the arguments made by both claimant and insurance representative bodies.

    As a result, the Government have decided that more time is necessary to make sure the whiplash reform programme is fully ready for implementation. We have always been clear that we need to do this right, rather than hastily. In particular, we need to provide sufficient time to work with the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to put in place the supporting rules and pre-action protocol and to give industry sufficient time to prepare their businesses for the changes to how small road traffic personal injury claims are managed. We will also lay the statutory instrument in Parliament to introduce the tariff of damages for whiplash injuries.

    In the light of this, the Government have decided to implement these reforms on 1 August 2020. The necessary rules and pre-action protocol, and the statutory tariff, will be published in sufficient time before implementation.

    The new service is designed with all users in mind, and will be simple and easy to operate. Currently motor insurers accept liability for damages in the majority of whiplash claims after road traffic accidents, and we do not expect insurer behaviour to change post implementation. However, there will be occasions when insurers do not accept liability, and claimants will need to be able to resolve liability disputes. Initially, the Government proposed to include a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to enable liability and quantum claims to be adjudicated. However, in the event, no practicable solution which gave sufficient coverage of ADR for claims could be found. As a result, ADR will no longer be part of the online service. Instead, we will ensure access to justice by developing bespoke processes to enable litigants to go to court to establish liability.​

    The increase in the small claims track limit will not apply to those who have been termed “vulnerable road-users”, for example, motor-cyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, and who in any event will not subject our whiplash tariff provisions.

    The increase in the small claims track limit will also not apply to children or protected parties. This will enable the Government to test the processes and ensure that we have them correct before considering further extension.

    Because these claimants will not be subject to the new small claims limit, they will also not be subject to the new pre-action protocol and so will not have access to the online service. As such, they will not be able to source their own medical report via the online service, which is statutorily required to settle claims for whiplash injuries. Therefore, until they can access the online service, the normal track for claims by children and protected parties which include a whiplash injury, will be the fast track and these claims will not be allocated to the small claims track. This means that, for now, these claimants will be able to instruct a legal representative who may obtain a medical report on their behalf and their costs of legal representation will remain recoverable. This decision has been taken for no reason other than that we consider it the fairest and most straightforward approach to ensuring, for now, that these claimants can obtain the medical report which they must obtain before they can settle their claim.

    It is absolutely right that this Government continue their commitment to tackle the high number and costs of whiplash claims, and the impact these have on the cost of motor insurance premiums for hard working families. Delivering these reforms remains a key Government priority. We will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that all are sufficiently prepared for the new measures on 1 August 2020.

  • Priti Patel – 2020 Statement on an Independent Review of Drugs

    Priti Patel – 2020 Statement on an Independent Review of Drugs

    Below is the text of the statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    In February last year, the former Home Secretary, my Right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), announced that Professor Dame Carol Black had been appointed to lead a major independent review of drugs. Dame Carol was asked to look at a wide range of issues, including the system of support and enforcement around drug misuse, in order to inform our thinking about what more can be done to tackle drug harms.

    I am pleased to announce that today Dame Carol’s review has been published. The review provides detailed analytical insights on the challenges around drug supply and demand and I would like to thank Dame Carol for producing such an accomplished piece of research. This will be of significant value in guiding further Government action to tackle drugs as we move forward.

    This Government recognise that illegal drugs devastate lives, families and communities. There are strong links between drugs and serious violence which have played out on our streets, as well as a range of wider health and social harms. The review makes clear that we face a whole system problem that should be addressed by looking at Government intervention in the round. It is therefore critical that we bring together partners from across Government and externally to build upon this work and tackle the challenging issues Dame Carol has raised.

    Activity is already in place to tackle the findings in the review. The Home Office is stepping up activity to address the challenges highlighted around drug supply and county lines. We will bring the full force of the Government’s response to bear on drugs supply, with work to disrupt supply from source countries; build resilience and enhance interception at the border; improve our ability to disrupt the groups that control UK wholesale and distribution of illegal drugs; pursue associated money flows; and use interventions to divert users into treatment where appropriate.

    This activity includes further investment to significantly increase the law enforcement response to county lines. Our investment is having a direct impact against high harm county lines which is why we have now committed an additional £5 million, on top of the £20 million that we announced in October 2019. This means we will be investing £20 million in 2020-21 to further increase ​activity against these ruthless gangs. We are also working with colleagues across Government and with key partners to develop a wider, whole system response to tackle the county lines business model and associated violence and exploitation

    Alongside this, my Right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will commission a further review of prevention, treatment and recovery. Dame Carol will lead this further review with input from experts in the field. It will build on Dame Carol’s work to ensure vulnerable people with substance misuse problems get the support they need to recover and turn their lives around. It will look at treatment in the community and in prison, and how treatment services work with wider services that enable a person with a drug dependency to achieve and sustain recovery, including mental health, housing, employment, and the criminal justice system.

    The Department of Health Social and Care will work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice to ensure the review is wide-ranging.

    There are also a range of wider activity across Government to address the issues raised by Dame Carol, including work to prevent drug misuse among young people.

    I am pleased that the new Prime Minister-chaired taskforce on crime and justice has been announced, which will enable us to be ambitious in reducing crime, including county lines, and drug-related crime such as the acquisitive crime driven by heroin and crack cocaine use.

    Given the devolved nature of many parts of the response, we will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure drug misuse is tackled as a UK-wide problem.

    With this renewed focus on drugs across Government we are determined to address the challenges raised in the review head on.

    A copy of Dame Carol’s review and the executive summary will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-drugs-phase-one-report

  • Ben Wallace – 2020 Statement on the Defence Equipment Plan

    Ben Wallace – 2020 Statement on the Defence Equipment Plan

    Below is the text of the statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    I am pleased to place in the Library of the House the 2019 financial summary of the defence equipment plan, ​which sets out our plans to deliver the equipment needed by our armed forces to defend the country and protect our national interest.

    The threat to the UK and our interests is intensifying and diversifying. As we set out in the modernising defence programme, we need to modernise to keep pace with these threats. The forthcoming integrated security, defence and foreign policy review will provide us with the opportunity to re-visit our equipment plans to make sure that we are spending the defence budget on the right capabilities to keep our country safe in the decades ahead. This will inescapably bring some difficult choices.

    We will need to create the financial headroom in our equipment plan to harness emerging technologies and develop the battle-winning capabilities of tomorrow. We know that to get this right, we must accelerate our work to mobilise, modernise and transform so that we deliver more effectively and efficiently over the long term. Reviewing our acquisition process will be an important part of this work.

    While there is clearly work still to do, the Department has made encouraging progress in improving financial management, including in the equipment plan. We have balanced the budget for equipment in the 2019-20 financial year and refined our assessment of the financial shortfall in our plans for the next decade, which has reduced from £7 billion to £2.9 billion, or 1.6% of our equipment budget.

    We take seriously the recommendations of the 2018 Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the equipment plan and in April 2019 reported the actions we are taking in response. These include revisions to this report to include further analysis of changes to the affordability of the plan and provide further background information on individual projects.

    The Government remain committed to meeting the NATO target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence, and at least 20% of that spending will be on equipment. During 2018-19, the Government committed £1.6 billion additional spending for defence and a further £2.2 billion was committed in spending round 2019. The detailed implications of this most recent settlement on the equipment plan are being reviewed and will be reported in due course.

    The Department is alert to the financial challenges rooted in previous strategic defence and security reviews that were over ambitious and underfunded. That is why the Prime Minister granted a £2.2 billion uplift at the last spending review and it is why the integrated defence, security and foreign policy review will be vital in ensuring the Department’s plans are put on a stable footing.

  • Philip Rutnam – 2020 Resignation Statement

    Below is the text of the resignation statement made by Philip Rutnam, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, on 29 February 2020.

    I have this morning resigned as permanent secretary of the Home Office.

    I take this decision with great regret after a career of 33 years.

    I am making this statement now because I will be issuing a claim against the Home Office for constructive dismissal.

    In the last 10 days, I have been the target of a vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign.

    It has been alleged that I have briefed the media against the home secretary.

    This – along with many other claims – is completely false.

    The home secretary categorically denied any involvement in this campaign to the Cabinet Office.

    I regret I do not believe her.

    She has not made the efforts I would expect to dissociate herself from the comments.

    Even despite this campaign I was willing to effect a reconciliation with the home secretary, as requested by the cabinet secretary on behalf of the prime minister.

    But despite my efforts to engage with her, Priti Patel has made no effort to engage with me to discuss this.

    I believe that these events give me very strong grounds to claim constructive, unfair dismissal – and I will be pursuing that claim in the courts.

    My experience has been extreme but I consider that there is evidence that it is part of a wider pattern of behaviour.

    One of my duties as permanent secretary was to protect the health, safety and well-being of our 35,000 people.

    This created tension with the home secretary, and I have encouraged her to change her behaviours.

    I have received allegations that her conduct has included shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands – behaviour that created fear and that needed some bravery to call out.

    I know that resigning in this way will have very serious implications for me personally. The Cabinet Office offered me a financial settlement that would have avoided this outcome.

    I am aware that there will continue to be briefing against me now I have made this decision, but I am hopeful that at least it may not now be directed to my colleagues or the department.

    This has been a very difficult decision but I hope that my stand may help in maintaining the quality of government in our country, which includes hundreds of thousands of civil servants loyally dedicated to delivering this government’s agenda.

    I will make no further comment at this stage.

  • Christina Rees – 2020 Speech on Welsh Affairs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Christina Rees, the Labour MP for Neath, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    I thank the Government for bringing forward this debate on Welsh affairs. Of course, the calendar dictates that we are unable to hold the debate on St David’s Day, as 1 March falls on a Sunday this year. Nevertheless, the debate remains a firm fixture in our parliamentary business, providing a great opportunity to discuss the issues, challenges and priorities that matter to Wales.

    I also thank the Government for granting the debate in Government time, which has not happened for many years; not, I think, since the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) became Secretary of State—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would be able to correct me on that, were he here, as his knowledge of the House is far better than mine. Certainly, since I have been taking part in St David’s Day debates, they have been Backbench Business debates.

    Yesterday I bumped into my good friend Albert Owen, the former Member for Ynys Môn. We were reminiscing about Welsh affairs debates, among other things. Seeing Albert reminded me just how much I miss him, Ian Lucas, David Hanson, Susan Elan Jones, Owen Smith, Madeleine Moon, Anne Clwyd and, last but not least, my former shadow ministerial colleague, Chris Ruane. Those dedicated Welsh MPs have given years of service to the people of Wales, and their work should be celebrated for all that is good about being a Welsh Labour MP. We have two great new Labour MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who are already making their presence felt and will be fantastic additions to our Labour Team Wales.

    Not many hon. Members know this, but in my constituency of Neath we celebrate not only St David’s Day, when the children dress up in Welsh costumes to celebrate our Welsh culture, but St Patrick’s Day. Patrick was born in Banwen, at the top of the Dulais valley, but he was kidnapped as a child and taken to Ireland. Every year we hold a fantastic celebration at a stone we have erected to his memory in Banwen. Schoolchildren, residents and special guests come along to hear the great Roy Noble giving one of his memorable speeches about St Patrick. We are indebted to the famous local historian George Brinley Evans, now 93, who researched this phenomenon ​and was the leading protagonist in establishing the St Patrick stone and the annual event. Please join us. We have a leprechaun who comes all the way from Ireland to take part too. I look forward to seeing Members there on 17 March.

    It is regrettable that I must begin my proper address in sombre tones, as we reflect on the impact that recent events have had on our great nation. Two storms and unprecedented flooding have taken their toll on communities across Wales, including, but not limited to, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Llanwrst, Monmouth and parts of my Neath constituency. From severe damage to bridges and iconic landmarks, such as the national lido of Wales, to the destruction of the entire contents of family homes, these floods will cost Wales dearly.

    The First Minster, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the Prince of Wales have visited households and communities right across the country, but alas the Prime Minster could not find the time to visit just one of the flood-damaged areas of the UK. He has said many times that he would not “die in a ditch”, but perhaps he was missing in action because he fell into the moat surrounding his holiday castle, or perhaps he could not find his wellies.

    The community spirit and response in our devastated Welsh communities has shown the world the best of Wales: compassion, kindness, humour and solidarity have shone through the contribution of volunteers, emergency services, council workers, welfare halls, miners’ institutes, Royal British Legion branches, rugby clubs, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and so many more.

    Craig Williams

    The hon. Lady missed that the source of the Severn is in Montgomeryshire, in mid-Wales. Although I will not politicise this or make tribal political points about missing one of the biggest floods in Wales, will she reflect on the fact that we have to work together to ensure that people recover as soon as possible from this tragedy, and that does not include cheap political shots of the sort she has made thus far?

    Christina Rees

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We always work together, but the Prime Minister is the leader, so he should have visited the areas affected.

    Many local authorities are pulling together to support those who are most severely impacted by the floods, working in the most demanding of circumstances to get the quickest possible support to those in need. However, the UK Government must now step up and recognise the disproportionate and intense impact that the floods have had on Wales. We need additional funding for Wales. We need protection for emergency household payments. We need immediate help for those who do not have insurance. We need support for those who have lost their jobs and livelihoods.

    Geraint Davies

    My hon. Friend is probably aware that more severe weather conditions are expected over the coming seven to 10 days, so is she as concerned as I am about the saturation of coal tips and the like? We need an urgent assessment of whether there is an imminent risk to villages and hamlets in the valleys, which are susceptible to flash-flooding and slides, because of the topography of the valleys and the increased risk from ​climate change. We need urgent action, immediate help and long-term solutions; we cannot just wait for a report to come back.

    Christina Rees

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I have visited homes that have been flooded or affected by landslips over the past few weeks, it has broken my heart. People who do not have insurance have had their homes destroyed yet again. Yes, we need action, and we need it now, because the weather forecast is definitely not favourable for the next few weeks.

    A quarter of all homes and businesses were flooded in Rhondda Cynon Taf alone, with a potential bill of £30 million—twice the council’s annual capital budget. I must commend the work of the Rhondda Cynon Taf MPs and AMs and the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, Andrew Morgan, who is also leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, which has done some fantastic work.

    There is so much to celebrate about our great nation, some of which I will discuss in a moment, but there are also a great many challenges and a level of uncertainty in our communities, against the backdrop of Brexit and the negative effects of austerity on so many Welsh communities and families.

    These challenging times make it more important than ever to have a strong Welsh Labour team of MPs here in Westminster, working with the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff Bay. It remains a huge privilege to serve as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), our Welsh Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and our wonderful Welsh Labour MPs.

    This Tory UK Government have continually failed Wales, and unfortunately the Wales Office continues to fail to stand up for the people of Wales. We were promised the electrification of the Great Western main line to Swansea, but the UK Government changed their mind. The Swansea bay tidal lagoon was recommended by this Government’s own inquiry, but they ignored it, and Wylfa Newydd has been paused. The people of Wales hear loud and clear the UK Government’s promises to our country, and the people will hold them to account for their failure to deliver. We demand more, and we demand better.

    The UK Government must recognise the folly of continuing to frustrate efforts to launch a major new domestic market for Welsh steel. The pathfinder tidal lagoon in Swansea bay requires around 100,000 tonnes of steel, much of which could be sourced in Wales, against a very clear commitment from the investors and businesses involved to buy Welsh. The past 12 months have seen the loss of hundreds of jobs in the steel industry, in Tata’s Orb steelworks in Newport and in Liberty Steel in sites in south Yorkshire and south Wales. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for their tireless campaigning on behalf of our steelworkers.

    Wales needs investment, as the UK as a whole needs investment, and the people of Wales will judge this Government harshly if they continue to fail to deliver it. Opposition Members will continue to speak up for Wales—for Welsh families, communities and businesses— ​and for the devolution settlement itself. It is not for any UK Government unilaterally to rewrite the rules of devolution by attempting to power-grab and centralise functions set out in law and agreed through the ballot box, using Brexit as a cover for those actions. Despite what the Secretary of State has said about the UK shared prosperity fund, it is still a mystery to me. We continue to wait and wait for the much anticipated consultation, and for any details whatever on how the fund will be implemented. It must respect devolution and be overseen by the Welsh Government, and we must not see a penny less or a power lost. I commend the report produced by the all-party parliamentary group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).

    The people of Wales have a right to see a UK Government acting in their best interests, protecting their jobs and investing in the public services they rely on and the infrastructure we desperately need to secure Wales’s future. Despite a decade of austerity and a 7% real-terms cut to funding per head of the population, the Welsh Government have continued to lead the way in delivering landmark legislation and progressive policy making. The Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 and the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act 2016 are groundbreaking examples of a modern legislature creating laws that make a difference for the people of the nation.

    The Welsh Government have also introduced policies such as free bus travel for the over-60s, free swimming for children and older people, free school breakfasts, free prescriptions and free hospital parking, as well as being the first nation of the UK to introduce the 5p carrier bag charge. They have banned smoking in cars carrying children, and Wales has the third highest recycling rate in the world. That is just a brief glimpse of what has been delivered during the past decade. The achievements of the Welsh Government are, quite honestly, nothing short of remarkable.

    Craig Williams

    On that point, will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

    Christina Rees

    For the hon. Member, of course.

    Craig Williams

    I could not resist intervening at this particular moment—I rather thought it was 1 April, not St David’s Day. Will the hon. Member comment on the report of the Wales Audit Office that pointed out the several hundred million-pound overspend on the heads of the valleys road and other significant infrastructure projects over the decade that the hon. Member said was so successful?

    Christina Rees

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, European funding produced the heads of the valley road.

    Craig Williams

    So it’s okay to waste it?

    Christina Rees

    Pardon me?

    Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

    So it’s okay to waste it?

    ​Christina Rees

    No, of course —that road is going ahead. It is only the UK Government who have prevented it from going ahead faster. I do not know where I am now; the hon. Members have completely lost me. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. We must not have heckling—well, not much—of the shadow Secretary of State.

    Christina Rees

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to finish now, because I am sure that lots of other Members want to speak.

    Jonathan Edwards

    Will the hon. Member take a friendly intervention before she moves on?

    Christina Rees

    I was getting to the good bit, but I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

    Jonathan Edwards

    I am sure the hon. Member will also have some concern about the negotiating mandate set out today by the British Government in relation to the second phase of Brexit and the trade negotiations. Indeed, the Welsh Government have issued a stern statement indicating that they were not consulted at all about the mandate. I fear that the best we can hope for is a bare-bones free trade agreement. The Welsh economy will be more exposed because of our reliance on exports into the single market. What does the hon. Member think the Welsh Government should do now, since the British Government clearly are not taking any notice of Wales’s position?

    Christina Rees

    The hon. Member makes some very good points. It has been a concern of mine for a long time that the Welsh Government have not been involved in the negotiations. They have to be involved; this is the future of Wales that we are talking about. I am really disappointed that they have not been involved to the extent that they should have been.

    Now I come to the good bit. The House will know how passionate I am about sport. Wales is a sporting nation. When Wales wins the people of Wales are very happy. When we lose it is the end of the world. I went to the Wales versus Italy match, which was a great result, as the House knows—I don’t think I want to talk about the other matches, so I will move swiftly on.

    My constituency of Neath has a proud sporting history. The Welsh Rugby Union was created in the Castle Hotel in Neath. The best player in the world, Gareth Edwards, was born and bred in Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen. Dan Biggar’s family was born and bred in the Dulais valley, where I live, as was Dennis Gethin, who recently stood down as chair of the WRU. Of course, Neath RFC are also called the All Blacks—a great tribute.

    In a former life I was a squash player and played for Wales over 100 times. It was a great honour to pull on the red jersey of Wales. I became national coach for Squash Wales, and one of my roles was to develop squash for all ages and all standards throughout Wales. We have a superb junior development structure, which has produced some great players. I am very proud to say that on St David’s Day we will have two senior players ranked in the top 10 in the world, and they have both come through the junior structure: Tesni Evans, based in Prestatyn, is ​two times British champion and bronze medallist at the last Commonwealth games; and Joel Makin from Aberdare, a member of the Welsh men’s team who came third in the last world championships. Wales is again showing that we are punching above our weight.

    Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Christina Rees

    Sure—a squash player?

    Rob Roberts

    Not a squash player, but almost. On a sporting theme, would the hon. Member be kind enough to pay tribute to the wonderful Jade Jones from Flint in my constituency who has, since the last time this debate was held—since last St David’s Day, in fact—become 2019 world champion in taekwondo?

    Christina Rees

    Of course I will. Jade is fantastic advocate for women’s sport, and I am glad that the hon. Member intervened to mention her.

    Coming back to squash, there is a great injustice. We have been campaigning for many years to get squash into the Olympics. It has never been included, despite having championships at every national and international level. I have been banging on about this for quite a few years, so I ask all Members to join me to ensuring that squash becomes an Olympic sport.

    I am not the only Welsh Labour MP who has represented Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) is a Welsh rugby international. I must say that that game is far too tough for me; one good tackle and I think I would be done for, so I will stay off the rugby field.

    That is enough from me. I look forward to all Members’ contributions and wish the whole House a happy St David’s Day for Sunday.

  • Simon Hart – 2020 Statement on Welsh Affairs

    Below is the text of the statement made by Simon Hart, the Secretary of State for Wales, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

    Let me welcome everybody to this St David’s Day debate, where we have some veterans and some first-timers. I have to apologise in advance, because I need to leave to entertain some visitors from Wales in No.10 during the course of this debate, so if I slip away, there is a good reason for my doing so. [Interruption.] I apologise to Opposition Members who have not received their invitation quite yet.

    This is a fantastic opportunity to champion Wales at a national level, and to highlight the potential and resilience of our constituencies. I wanted to start by discussing resilience, because there has been no greater example of it than the response to the recent flooding events in Wales and further afield. I have visited communities in Carmarthen and Pontypridd, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies,) has been around and about in the Monmouthshire area, where the Rivers Wye and Usk have caused such devastation. We have spoken to emergency services, agencies, MPs, AMs, local authorities and the Welsh Government on numerous occasions. It is encouraging to see that when things such as this really matter, there is a such a widespread degree of co-operation between those agencies.

    Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) rose—

    Simon Hart

    I am not going to take every intervention, but, in the spirit of collaboration, I will give way on this occasion.

    Mark Tami

    The Secretary of State has told us where he has been, but does he know when the Prime Minister has been to Wales or whether he is intending to go there?

    Simon Hart

    I am surprisingly grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to say that the Under-Secretary will wave a letter from the head of his local authority that asked us specifically not to interfere and get under the feet of emergency services by going to these areas before the moment was right. I have spoken to a number of local authorities and they echoed that view, so rather than make this a political stunt, we let the experts get on with what they wanted and needed to get on and do.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    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.

    ​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.

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    Bearing in mind that the Rivers Severn and Wye have an impact on communities in England, if the Welsh Government were to approach the UK Government for additional support specifically to address that flooding, how would the Secretary of State respond?

    Simon Hart

    We will respond in the way we always do to Welsh Government requests for assistance, in whatever form it might be requested, by taking it extremely seriously and respecting the views that they express. However, in the two meetings I have had with the First Minister so far, it is clear—this is no criticism of him—that we are a long way off being able to measure precisely what that request might consist of. When it comes, we will take it seriously.

    Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

    Simon Hart

    Not at the moment, thank you. It is nothing personal, obviously.

    At this time, I just want to mention the potential for landslides, which, obviously, has caused almost as much concern as some of the flooding risk. In the past few days, that issue has become particularly significant, and I wanted to update colleagues by saying that I have met the First Minister to discuss it. We have brought all the relevant stakeholders together, either by way of conference call or in person on Monday this week. Just so that those co-signatories know, I should say that we have also received a letter from the hon. Member for Rhondda which asks some of the questions that I hope to be able to answer now.

    The First Minister and I have asked for an up-to-date database of the sites involved—it may surprise some to learn that no such thorough document exists—as we ​want to know precisely who owns them. We have asked for a risk assessment to be undertaken as a matter of urgency as to the integrity of these sites and what exactly the legal liabilities are and where they lie. We have also asked for an outline of a potential timescale and cost for addressing problems associated with these sites, bearing in mind that it is difficult to get on to them at the moment because of the weather conditions that caused the problems in the first place. I also assure colleagues in the House that we will update them just as soon as we have information that we think is viable and useful.

    Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)

    I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he knows that this issue is of huge concern to those of us who represent Rhondda Cynon Taf constituencies, as I do. May I press him a little? He spoke about the liabilities, but will he assure me and other Members that no matter where responsibility lies, the UK Government will provide funding to ensure that the coal slips are safe? He will agree that we do not want a repeat of what has happened in the past, when Governments have argued over maintenance, controls and safety, and we have had situations like Aberfan.

    Simon Hart

    The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My referencing liability was not to pre-warn him that we will somehow try to excuse ourselves from liability; it is just so that we understand exactly what the legal position is regarding ownership, because there may be things such as access issues, which we need to understand. These things are always frustratingly complicated.

    I wish to use this opportunity to be positive about Wales, because there is much to be positive about. This discussion is about opportunities, jobs, growth, culture and identity—

    Geraint Davies rose—

    Simon Hart

    It will also be about an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to intervene—in a minute, but not yet. I have been waiting 10 years for the opportunity to be able to turn the hon. Gentleman down. I am not going to lose out on that.

    In Wales, there are now 144,000 more people in work than there were in 2010 and 90,000 fewer workless households than there were in 2010. Before anybody sticks up their hand and says, “Ah, but they’re not real jobs,” or, “Ah, but they’re zero-hours contracts,” even if we take the most pessimistic view of those figures, it is still a remarkable testament, not necessarily to the Welsh Government or even the UK Government, but to the businesses and individuals in Wales and their resilience in being able to create and sustain that positive economic picture.

    Since 2010, GDP per head in Wales has grown by more than the UK average, and in the past year alone 51 foreign investment projects have come our way, creating 1,700 jobs. We have institutions such as INEOS Automotive in Bridgend; Admiral and GoCompare; Airbus and Toyota in Deeside; Aston Martin in St Athan; Bluestone and Valero down in my part of the world, in west Wales; Tata, Celsa and Liberty Steel; numerous successful holiday and leisure small and medium-sized enterprises around the coast; agri-tech in Aberystwyth; a cyber-security hub in Newport; Zip World in north ​Wales; and a growing renewables hub in the Milford Haven waterway. I know that every single colleague present will have a fantastic example of people who have created interesting, diverse and profitable businesses.

    Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

    The Secretary of State mentions many companies, including some in my constituency. It is crucial that through a great education system we equip the younger generation to prepare for the opportunities in those companies, so will he join me in congratulating the Welsh Labour Government on the investment that they have put into my constituency? We have new schools in the east of Cardiff and in Penarth, and a new further education college—Cardiff and Vale College—and we have seen the improvement of a whole series of educational facilities at every level.

    Simon Hart

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, I will always congratulate any Government of any colour if they do the right thing by jobs and growth.

    On renewables, which I have touched on, Wales’s electricity is already 50% powered by clean energy, and I am committed, as I know colleagues are, to seeing that figure rise. This is of course the Prime Minister’s year of climate action, building up to COP26, and Wales has a role to play in that, just as it does in a low-carbon economy.

    Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)

    The Secretary of State is making an important point about Wales’s potential contribution towards meeting renewable energy targets. Does he agree that one of the big constraints we face in Wales is grid capacity? I know that he has not been long in the job, but has he had a chance to have any discussions with Western Power or National Grid, for example, about how we can enhance grid capacity so that more renewables projects can be taken forward?

    Simon Hart

    The answer is a partial yes. As my right hon. Friend knows, businesses in the Carmarthenshire element of my constituency in particular are constrained by grid capacity. In my capacity as an MP, my answer is yes; in my capacity as Secretary of State, my answer is that it is on the to-do list. It is an urgent issue that colleagues from Plaid Cymru raised with me towards the back end of last year.

    Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend has mentioned the importance of clean energy in Wales; would he be willing to meet me and other colleagues, together with the proposed developers of the Colwyn Bay tidal lagoon, and preferably with the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, to discuss the possibility of developing that very important contributor to clean energy in Wales?

    Simon Hart

    My right hon. Friend is right, and yes I would of course love to do that. There is a feeling in some quarters that perhaps we have turned our back on tidal lagoon energy; no, we have not. On anything like that project, which has good potential and offers value for money for taxpayers, I will of course meet my right hon. Friend and any other colleagues who may have similarly encouraging projects to promote.​

    This is not all about the traditional industries that I have already listed; it is also about innovative business: artificial intelligence, virtual reality, compound semiconductors, cyber-security, FinTech, InsureTech—lots of stuff with tech in the name—and many more cutting-edge new industries dotted around, not necessarily in the centres of Wales where people would expect to find them. These businesses offer long-term, well-paid, skilful, green jobs and keep home-grown talent in Wales.

    Geraint Davies

    The Secretary of State has mentioned the impact on Wales of climate change in terms of flooding, and he is now mentioning the opportunities; will he reconfirm that he is looking again with fresh eyes at the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, including at its financial structure and its cost relative to the price of future energy, which will go up? We cannot use all the coal and oil, because we will all burn up. It would be a pathfinder for new opportunities for export growth, not just in Wales but throughout the UK.

    Simon Hart

    In answering that, I want to avoid giving the hon. Gentleman the impression that we are just going to dust off the original tidal lagoon proposal, because that would possibly build up false hope. I can say that tidal lagoons as a concept were and remain something of significant potential for Wales and the rest of the UK, but any project obviously has to meet the right value-for-money criteria.

    We have talked about the traditional industries; Wales also has a fantastically expanding creative industry offer. Who would have thought it? Not many people know—apart from those in this Chamber, obviously—about “Doctor Who”, “Hinterland”, “Keeping Faith”, “Casualty”, “Gavin & Stacey” and, of course “Sex Education”, which is filmed in my ministerial colleague’s—

    Geraint Davies

    House. [Laughter.]

    Simon Hart

    In the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales.

    Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)

    I pay tribute to that programme, but apart from the brief sight of a Welsh flag, one would not know that it is filmed in Wales. We need to look at Netflix and the new creative industries and think about reminding people that we have these great facilities.

    Simon Hart

    Absolutely. My hon. Friend should raise that question with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, because it would seem to me to be the subject of an inquiry that that Committee might enjoy.

    On the subject of culture, we have a fantastic, rich and vibrant heritage. The fact that we have more than 600 castles—more per square mile than any other part of the world—is a source of great pride. We have world-class museums, we have galleries, and even the slate landscape of north Wales has been nominated for UNESCO world heritage status.

    In sport, we have won a grand slam since the previous St David’s Day debate. I will not make any further predictions on that score. In Tenby in west Wales we host Ironman Wales, the only competition in Wales that attracts more than 2,000 competitors from 35 countries. Last year, Loren Dykes of the Welsh national women’s football team was honoured with her MBE, and Wales has again qualified for the Euros.

    ​Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)

    Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming to the House a very good friend of mine, Lowri Morgan, a woman I used to play rugby with back in the day, who is renowned for her ultra-marathons and adventurism? She is here to join the Secretary of State in Downing Street this afternoon. I also welcome her father, Dr Morgan, who is also my constituent.

    Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)

    She wants us to come.

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    Lowri would love us to be there this afternoon. I had to explain the order of events; unfortunately we will not be able to join the Secretary of State. Sport is a massive industry in Wales—it is very important and very close to our hearts. It is important that we raise the profile and importance of sport for everyone, especially women.

    Simon Hart

    I very much look forward to meeting Lowri in No. 10. We will, of course, have a drink together and think of you all in here as we do.

    Let me return briefly to our economic prospects. No St David’s Day debate, certainly in recent years, would be complete without mention of our departure from the EU, which was voted for in Wales by a margin of 5%. The result of the election towards the end of last year confirms the Union ambitions and Union values of our residents.

    That leads me neatly to the shared prosperity fund, which is the subject of much discussion in this House and elsewhere—what it means, where it is going, what it will include, who will be responsible for it and so on. I have always said, and I said it on the day I was appointed, that this is a nice problem to have—large sums of money to be distributed by politicians elected in Wales by Wales for the first time in nearly 50 years. The shared prosperity fund for me, and I am sure this view is shared by the Welsh Government, too, is about jobs and growth. It is about priorities that benefit everybody across the country, not just specific parts of it. It is not about vanity projects and ideas that may sound good and even look good, but that do not deliver on those two core objectives.

    One of the reasons why the EU referendum vote went the way it did, why there was such a heated debate about it, why there was such frustration sometimes about the knowledge that there were large sums of money that never quite reached the places that they were meant to go, is because there are examples—admittedly not many—such as the funicular, a £2.5 million EU-funded project in Ebbw Vale. It broke down more than 250 times between June 2015 and November 2017, and it cost Blaenau Gwent Council £52,000 a year. I have not been aware at any time in recent years of residents of Wales campaigning for more of that kind of thing. Techniums are another example. I have one in my constituency. The 10 innovation centres, costing £38 million of EU funds, failed to meet job targets, and six centres closed after nine years. They were even described by the Lib Dems as a white elephant.

    Geraint Davies

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    ​Simon Hart

    No, no, hold tight. I liked the idea of a £20,000 dragon statue in Ebbw Vale, but the test of these things must be how they have contributed positively to jobs and growth. My challenge to the Welsh Government is for the UK and Welsh Governments to work collaboratively on the shared prosperity fund to make sure that those objectives are met and are driven by local demand.

    Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)

    I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. It really is a travesty for him to attempt to depict European funding in this way. European funding has been a huge boost to the Welsh economy. We need only look at road infrastructure, the colleges, the voluntary sector that has benefited and the training that we have put in place. All those things are very positive, but what he has presented is a gross caricature of reality.

    Simon Hart

    It is in fact quite the opposite. I suspect that what I have done is cause a certain amount of embarrassment. We all know and understand that the funding does not always work in the way that it should. I made it absolutely clear that the examples I gave are the exceptions, not the rule. My point is very clear. There should be a collaborative approach by the Welsh and UK Governments to prioritise jobs and growth. If the Welsh Government or Welsh Labour cannot live with that, that is their problem, not mine.

    Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

    Simon Hart

    I will give way once more, to the hon. Gentleman.

    Stephen Doughty

    I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being generous—but also uncharitable. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) made his point; I can point to examples in my constituency. In Butetown, EU funding went to the community centre, the youth pavilion, and regeneration in one of the most deprived areas in Wales. The Government have not given answers as to where funding will come from to ensure that the so-called levelling up agenda can be delivered. They need to answer those questions.

    Simon Hart

    The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Those questions will be answered. Whether they are answered now or at a future stage is a matter for him to judge. I am conscious that I have been super generous with interventions, and that I must now get on with my few remaining comments.

    As the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, levelling up and strengthening the Union are our buzzwords. That means road, rail, air, and digital infrastructure improvements. It means mobile phone coverage in the most hard-to-reach places and cross-border connectivity. If we want an argument in this place, let us have one about the M4 relief road. Let us hear from Opposition colleagues about what pressure they are putting on the Welsh Government to remove that blockage and unleash economic potential throughout south and west Wales. Not a single business from the west coast of Pembrokeshire to the Severn Bridge does not believe that the project is a good idea. The blockage appears to come from the First Minister’s Office, so if colleagues share our ambition ​for the project, let us hear from them. I will take any intervention from the Opposition confirming their enthusiasm for that improvement. [Interruption.] Okay, perhaps not.

    We also want a more reliable rail service and charging points for electric vehicles. For those who say, “What has HS2 ever done for us?”, I would say this—

    Geraint Davies rose—

    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—

    Simon Hart

    No, I will not give way. My mood has changed. I am no longer co-operative and collaborative.

    On defence, we have, in our ministerial team, two people who have worn a military uniform—that of the Royal Artillery in the case of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and that of the Royal Wessex Yeomanry in my case. We have an instinctive love, affection and respect for the defence industry, our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and we want to see more of them in Wales. We want to ensure that their veterans’ railcard is delivered in exactly the same way by the Welsh Government as it will be by the UK Government in November, and we want to preserve and enhance the Ministry of Defence footprint in Wales.

    Let me turn to the question of steel, which is of huge significance to a number of constituencies, including mine. I reassure the House that the UK Government recognise not only the economic value of steel, but its social and cultural importance in Wales. We are working with steel companies to find out, and be absolutely clear in our minds about, what they see as a sustainable steel industry, and what UK and Welsh Government support they need to be able to develop that. I will be at Tata Steel Port Talbot tomorrow. I hope to meet the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) there to discuss these issues further.

    I want to end on a cultural matter to do with the Welsh language. I am very proud of the fact that S4C moved its headquarters from Cardiff to Carmarthen. It is, of course, the only Welsh language broadcaster. As somebody who has, as the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) knows, a limited grasp of the Welsh language—she would argue that I had a limited grasp of any language—this is of real significance. It is about far more than viewing figures. I am anxious to make sure that the language is seen as approachable, fun, and significant. The moment it becomes politicised, it turns off people who might be taking their first steps with the language—whether they are already residents ​of Wales, or are moving to Wales, perhaps for work. The vibrancy of the language and its future are important.

    The Welsh Government ambition, which I fully support, is to have 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. That will be achieved only if that is seen as something that we can aspire to achieve without fear of political retribution if we somehow fall short. Inserting the odd word of Welsh into a speech or article does not do the trick. It is a lazy way of attempting to do our duty by the Welsh language. We have to go further than that, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say more about that later.

    On that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is time for a gwin coch mawr over in No. 10. Those are the three words of Welsh that I have learned and have carried me through the most difficult situations over the past 10 years. This is a great occasion. It is a brilliant opportunity for us to speak about the positives of Wales. I look forward to hearing the rest of the contributions.