PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

63 Debate on the Address
9 MAY 2012
Debate on the Address
64
[Mr Llwyd]
I shall move on swiftly to the notion of televising
court proceedings, which has not yet been mentioned.
As a lawyer, I am not in favour of televising advocates,
because there could be a danger of their playing to the
gallery. I am not saying that many would do so, but
some might. I understand, however, that the proposals
will follow the Scottish model, which would be very
sensible. They would confine the televising to the judge’s
summing up and sentencing remarks. That would be
helpful, because sentencing remarks give out not only a
warning to the public but an indication to practitioners
of the penalties that certain offences attract. A period
of experimentation would be helpful in this regard.
Much has been said about the recent flurry of activity
from active shareholders in companies such as Trinity
Mirror and Aviva. I will not rehearse those arguments,
but I hope that we will see a strengthening of shareholder
democracy. It is abominable that share values can go
down while bonuses go up. That makes no sense whatever.
We also believe in a maximum wage, with a set differential
between those at the top of a company and those at the
bottom. That is not a new idea. In fact, it was first floated
by the successful financier J. P. Morgan more than
100 years ago. It seems to work well in many spheres,
and I would like to see it happening in this context. I
would also support workers’ representation in the
boardroom, to provide perspective for companies on
remuneration and on the business of the company in
general. Perhaps we can learn from structures that are
already in place in successful countries such as Germany.
I wholeheartedly welcome the notion of the separation
of retail and investment banking. The Chancellor will
know that that proposal has the support of the whole
House; it is long overdue.
Proposals have been put forward for a single-tier
pension and, from what I have heard, that seems a good
idea. We floated the idea in 2010, with what we called
the living pension. This seems to be a similar idea and,
whatever it is called, if it is pitched reasonably, it will be
a good measure. We all have examples of widows telling
us that they have missed three or four years’ work while
they brought up their children, and that they are now
condemned to receiving a much lower state pension. A
single-tier pension would be simpler to administer and
better all round. I welcome the notion, at least, although
we will need to look into the details that will no doubt
appear before long.
On the proposals for procedural changes to adoption,
there is certainly a case for ensuring that youngsters
who come up for adoption are taken care of with the
minimum of fuss and delay. Delay only adds to the
heartache. I have no doubt that we all have the best
interests of the children at heart, but we must remember
that 40% of our courts have now been shut down and
tens of thousands of court staff have been laid off.
Those staff would have assisted families in their first
encounter with the court process. In addition, hundreds
of people at the Children and Family Court Advisory
and Support Service—which prepares reports on families
involved in placement and, ultimately, adoption—have
also gone, and there have been huge cuts in the probation
service. There have been cuts in social services as well.
How are we going to improve the adoption service
against the background of those cuts? I think that there
will be problems ahead. I hope that we will be able to
achieve those improvements, because there is certainly
a case for doing so, but I am afraid that there will be
problems.
I can add nothing to what the right hon. Member for
Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said about the
proposals for internet surveillance. He put forward his
views on them in the clearest possible way. I actually
believe that there is a case for surveillance to enable the
security services to carry out their work, but there must
be safeguards in place. I am sure that we will be able to
discuss that matter further. The proposals for secret
courts are doomed to failure from the beginning. What
the right hon. Gentleman did not say—unintentionally,
no doubt—was that several special advocates have resigned,
over the years, because they find the concept so one-sided
and unjust that they do not want to be part of it.
Should we be perpetuating and extending that system?
The answer, quite frankly, is no, and anyone with any
concern for the court process would undoubtedly say
that that is the proper response.
I am surprised that there was no mention in the
speech of the High Speed 2 rail link. We have heard a
lot about it over the past few months, but it seems to
have gone to ground for the time being. I was rather
looking forward to Wales receiving a Barnett formula
consequential of around £1.9 billion, which could be
spent on improving transport infrastructure across Wales
and electrifying the lines that sorely need it.
Geraint Davies: I agree that we should be campaigning
for that £1.9 billion consequential for Wales. Does the
right hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to the case
for electrification, there is a case to be made for a
reduction in the Severn bridge toll? Traffic across the
bridge was reduced by 7% last year, but we need that
connectivity to the south-west if we are to build the
economy of south Wales.
Mr Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is right; that is
becoming an issue. The decrease in traffic across the
bridge in the past two years has been quite stark, and
that is not going to help anyone’s economy. I am sure
that there is a case for such a reduction, and we should
look carefully at it. Otherwise, there could be a drag on
further development in that part of Wales, if not the
whole of the country.
I would have welcomed further steps towards devolving
powers relating to energy generation projects over 50 MW
to the Welsh Government. Some of us who took part in
the deliberations on the last Wales legislation did not
understand how the figure of 50 MW had been arrived
at. The result has been that potential developers, often
multinationals, can get their developments—windmills,
for example, which not everyone is in favour of—pushed
through on the nod by the Department in London over
the heads of those in the Welsh Government. That is
not right. The other side of that coin is that several
thousand people in mid-Wales make their living out of
developing sustainable energy materials and projects.
I would like to see that expanded, which is why I would
like the limit of 50 MW to be removed. We need to
develop that industry further. It is already moving forward;
mid-Wales is like a mini-silicon valley, with thousands
of jobs involved. We need to carry on encouraging that,
and we are well placed to do so.