Since 2004 Plaid Cymru have campaigned for a supermarket Ombudsman to ensure a more level playing field for producers, such as our dairy farmers who often find themselves hostage to unfair pricing practices. Therefore we welcome the proposed legislation, but we will be campaigning to make sure the Grocery ombudsman as it is to be called will have as much teeth as possible.

We welcome the indication that measures will be introduced to reform banking services. The Vickers commission provide clear guidance on the need to create buffers between retail banking and casino operations. My personal view is that there needs to be a complete separation under the terms of the Glass Steagall provisions of the 1930s in response to the great depression of the 1920s if we are to avoid a repeat of 2008. This is when ordinary working people were expected to bail out the financial elite for their mistakes on speculative investments and are now paying for it in job losses, reduced living standards, loss of services and reduced pension entitlements. The financial media were speculating that any reforms won’t be implemented until 2019, which would be ten years after the crash and leave seven years for the all powerful financial services lobby down here to dumb down the current proposals.

Of huge concern was the intention to legislate to reform public sector pensions. Coupled with localised pay, this would have a huge impact on the spending power in an economy such as ours.

We are also very concerned about the proposals to legislate to introduce a snoopers charter. Labour firstly planned these intrusive measures, which just goes to show that no matter the colour of the government in Westminster the policy agenda stays the same. I can’t see how you can defend a democratic society by undermining civil liberties. It’s a complete contradiction.

On BBC News 24 I described the Queens Speech as a damp squib just like the London weather. The reality is there was nothing in the speech to alleviate peoples concerns over jobs and their squeezed standards of living. The economic focus seems to be based on addressing supply side problems in the economy, whilst it seems obvious to me that the real issue is a lack of demand. What we need is investment in the economy, and it was disappointing that the HS2 England project for England was put on the back burner because I was looking forward to making the case for Wales’ due Barnett consequential of £1.9bn.

Returning to Carmarthenshire politics it seems that Labour and the Independents (or closet Tories in the words of Peter Hain) have turned down my party’s offer of a unity administration for the county. This unholy alliance has no political mandate, no policies and no vision for our county. Worrying times indeed.

The reality is that the great Austerity experiment launched by the Tories and Lib Dems in London in its efforts to clean up the shambles left by the last Labour Administration is exacerbating the economic difficulties.

To give you a scale of the catastrophe, output is now 4.3% less than its peak in 2008. This makes it a longer lasting recession than the great depression of the 1920s. Worse is still to come, with 90% of the Tory/Lib Dem cuts yet to come equating to basically a million public sector jobs and £80 billion in investment.

The response of the London political elite has been typically evasive. Apparently it’s all Europe’s fault. Exports only contribute a woeful 15% of GDP due to Labour’s decimation of manufacturing and its obsessions with the rich bankers – which indicates that difficulties are far more domestic in their nature.

In short consumers are maxed out on their credit cards and we are still seeing the painful adjustment which follows the irresponsible housing bubble that Labour allowed to develop unfettered. The salvation won’t come in the purchasing power of ordinary people.

With government spending being slashed by an incredible £80bn during the course of the current comprehensive spending review, only private investment by businesses can kick start a recovery. But evidence suggests those companies that do have money to invest are sitting on their loots, waiting for matters to improve.

Austerity is failing yet the response of the political right (who never leave a good crisis go to waste) is to call for an austerity max solution based on dismantling workers rights and even more spending cuts and higher unemployment.

This is insanity. With the Labour party refusing to overturn any Tory cuts if they win the next Westminster election we are in a desperate situation.

Wales needs control over those key job creating leavers, and following the devolution of corporate taxation to Northern Ireland in this years Budget Finance Bill, I’ll be calling in Westminster for the Silk Commission recommendations to be implemented next year rather than being kept in limbo for a new Government of Wales Bill after the 2015 elections.

At the end of 2011, Rhodri Glyn Thomas co-led a debate in the National Assembly highlighting that the number of dairy farmers in Wales had fallen by over half (51.3%) since 1999, and called on the Labour Welsh government to develop a set of measures to protect dairy farmers from unfair commercial practices, allowing them to obtain a fair price for their product.

The key components of Plaid’s action plan were
a. A baseline standard raw milk contract
b. An enforceable code of practice between farmers and dairy companies
c. Publication of transparent information on the distribution of margins and wholesale prices

Earlier in 2011, constituency colleague Jonathan Edwards used the Westminster European Committee to champion a fair deal for dairy producers stating that farmers were in a weak position by not having sufficient control of the price they receive for their milk.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas said:

“The announcement by Dairy Crest to reduce its farm gate milk prices will a bitter pill for Welsh dairy farmers to swallow – especially when we consider farmers’ milk is already sold below its worth or below its cost of production. A payment of 3 to 4 pence per litre below the cost of production equates to an estimated £65million loss to the Welsh dairy sector every year.

“If the dairy industry in Wales is to survive, the Labour Welsh government must come forward with an urgent action plan, as Plaid Cymru has set out, to ensure our dairy farmers receive a fair price for their product and have greater contractual protections.”

Jonathan Edwards added:

“If there was any doubt that an end to unreasonable and unfair contracts in the dairy industry was needed, the decision by Dairy Crest this week to cut their price to farmers will erode any misgivings.

“The Labour Welsh government must bring forward proposals to protect the Welsh dairy industry as a matter of urgency.”

ENDS

Residents of the Ferryside and Llangain communities are affected by the noise levels of the testing with some complaining of vibrations in their home. Residents have formed the STIFLE (St. Ishmaels fights large explosions) action group to campaign for the testing of the bombs to be redirected.

Assembly Member Rhodri Glyn Thomas raised constituents’ concerns directly to the First Minister of Wales in the National Assembly this week. Following his questioning, Mr. Thomas said that despite defence not being devolved to the National Assembly he was surprised the Welsh Government had not had any discussions about a decision which effects so many of his constituents. Mr. Thomas went on to say how stunned he was that his neighbouring Assembly Member, Angela Burns, has actively tried to interfere with his representations and to downgrade his constituents’ concerns.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas said:

“I was surprised that the Welsh Government had no discussions with the Ministry of Defence regarding the increased testing and noise levels at the Pendine site.

“The testing is having a detrimental impact on my constituents who, unlike other communities, are not protected from the noise by a land buffer.

“I was stunned to see my Conservative neighbour intervene on this issue and actively seek to stop representations being made to the MoD. I am sure the people of Ferryside and Llansaint will be aghast to know that the Tories are content with their lives being blighted by increased noise levels and increased testing frequency”.

Meanwhile in Westminster, Jonathan Edwards MP has presented the petition from STILFE to the MoD.

“There has been a great deal of support for the testing facility in the past. However the increased testing levels are having a negative impact on the communities I represent.

“We’re sure the concerns can be resolved if the MoD is just prepared to listen”.

ENDS

The stimulus for debate was yesterday’s joint committee report on options for reform and the growing rebellion in Tory ranks demanding a referendum before any changes are introduced.

My view on this issue is guided by a very simple principle. Anyone able to introduce or change the laws that govern our lives should be elected.

The calls for a referendum are also a smokescreen by those opposed to change. Every party stood on a platform of reform of the Lords at the last Westminster election. The mandate for change is in those election manifestoes.

However, once again we see a missed opportunity by the ruling British elite to really change the way in which we are governed. At the same time the Mackay commission is looking into the so called West Loathian question as a response to the outcry in England whereby Welsh and Scottish MPs can vote on English only matters.

It would be far better to look at the two processes together. England is clearly in need of its own Parliament. The obvious solution would be to designate the Commons a chamber for English MPs and the Lords be reformed to a Federal Parliament in recognition of the changing relations between the nations and regions of the British state.

These changes would need to be complemented with reform of the Exchequer, as Welsh and Scottish budgets are currently determined by spending priorities for English services. Wales loses out particularly badly in the current arrangements.

The pressing need for reform will be even greater following Scottish independence in 2014, otherwise Wales will find itself completely marginalised in the successor state that we find ourselves in.

Despite heavy lobbying over the past year to remove the 50p additional rate of tax, the switch to a lower rate of 45p was one of the more surprising announcements in the Budget last month. It had been assumed by many that the Government mantra of being “in it together” meant that it would be politically necessary to show that all parts of society were paying more tax and facing the same level of public service cuts. Many therefore assumed that the 50p rate would be with us for at least as long as the Government maintained their plan A for cutting the deficit. After all, pressing issues such as Barnett formula reform have been conveniently parked in the name of the war on the deficit.

For my party, the issue is a matter of principle, irrespective of the timing and the state of the wider economy. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden of taxation. A progressive taxation system based on the Scandinavian model is part of our political DNA. Someone who earns at the additional rate of £3,000 of taxable income per week is clearly in that category. Only a handful of people who earn that kind of money reside in my constituency. We therefore support the maintenance of the current 50p additional rate.

18 Apr 2012 : Column 350

As I made clear in my speech on Second Reading on Monday, my opposition to this tax cut is on the record, as I voted against it during the Budget votes last month. The income tax rates for 2013-14 were one of the founding resolutions of the Budget, and offer very little scope for change today. My amendment 6, which would mean that the additional rate would be 50%, appears on the amendment paper but was not selected.

Hon. Members can therefore imagine my surprise that the official Opposition did not join my colleagues from a variety of smaller parties in opposing this measure on 26 March. That was the vote against a cut in the additional rate, but the Labour party unfortunately abstained, apart from two honourable exceptions. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) representing the official Opposition kindly allowed me to intervene on her during the debate on Monday. I asked her to confirm whether this was a deliberate or a tactical abstention. Her response was that the Opposition had voted against the whole Finance Bill and that was sufficient.

The hon. Lady’s answer would have been a semi-appropriate response, were it not for the fact that, if my memory serves me well, her party divided the House on resolution No. 8 on higher income benefit. Clearly, some resolutions were more important than others that evening.

Owen Smith: Just to clarify, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) made plain, we had already voted against the whole Bill. There was a further reason for not supporting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, which was that unfortunately it would have wiped out all the rates of taxation, not only the 50p rate.

Jonathan Edwards: I am sure the hon. Gentleman read the leaked e-mails from Labour insiders the following day, which were widely reported on the Guido Fawkes blog and which indicated that this was a major balls-up—excuse the pun.

2.15 pm

Mr Gauke: May I help the hon. Gentleman? The motion on which he voted against the Government related to the tax charges for 2013-14. With apologies to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), it would not have wiped out all the tax rates for this year. It was specifically for next year. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is right. It would not have had the impact that the hon. Member for Pontypridd suggested.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that clarification.

The idea that the Tories would offer a tax break to millionaires would surprise nobody in my constituency—in fact, they would expect it—but that Labour would abstain after announcing it would vote against it has led to a great deal of confusion. I have had a lot of fun on the doorstep in the past few weeks explaining that, while campaigning for the local authority elections. It is similar to the way the official Opposition announced the policy of a temporary cut in VAT last June, then two weeks later abstained on the Finance Bill when I and my colleagues proposed such a measure. A lack of consistency and clarity on economic matters explains

18 Apr 2012 : Column 351

why it is so easy for the Government to continue to pin the blame on the official Opposition for the UK’s economic mess in spite of the flawed and ideological cuts programme which is destroying the fabric of the economy.

Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD): Does the hon. Gentleman recall that 12 months ago there was a similar set of circumstances, when the Labour Opposition said on three occasions that they opposed the rise in VAT, continued to say that they were opposed to the rise in VAT, but on three occasions failed to vote against it?

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is of course right. It is a matter of record, and it shows that when it comes to a vote in the House, the Labour party does not have a policy.

Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): The issue was not invented there so the Opposition could not vote for it, whereas although I disagree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), I credit him with being principled, and principled in his voting, rather than trying to have it both ways, like Labour.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that we are more efficient than the official Opposition.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am very fond of him, so may I give him a tip? It is not to believe what he reads in newspapers, not to believe what he reads by Guido Fawkes—most hon. Members would agree with that—and not to listen to Liberal Democrats, who will support and vote for the cut from 50p to 45p, but to focus his anger on the Government, who are introducing this change.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that intervention. I am coming to that. Unfortunately, the papers did not report Labour’s shameless record on some of these issues.

Monday’s Second Reading saw Members from both sides continuing to trade a barrage of figures to explain why the additional rate should be cut or remain as it is. I thought the contribution from the hon. Member for Pontypridd on Monday night was excellent in explaining the political and economic value of the 50p rate. It is clear that there is no agreement over the mechanics of the issue, and given that Labour’s agreement to the 50p rate in the first place was based on revenue-raising rather than principle, that is a very important fact.

The Treasury should therefore instigate a report on the income-shifting and avoidance measures used to lower the amount of tax paid under the additional rate, and on possible revenue from a 50% and a 45% rate, taking into consideration the outlying factors that always impact heavily on the first year of any tax innovation. Such a report would clarify the situation and allow the House to make a considered judgment one way or the other in the next Finance Bill. As always, the majority of people pay the tax that they should, but there are some who will always try to avoid as much as possible.

18 Apr 2012 : Column 352

The artificial shock of the Chancellor at the scale of tax avoidance suggests that he takes Members of this House for fools. Although I accept the argument for a relationship between a lower taxation rate and economic growth and perhaps larger revenues, I find that argument counter-intuitive for income tax rates on this occasion. The majority of those who seek to avoid paying income tax at 50% will, I suspect, also seek to avoid paying it at 45%—and, as the Government contend over the 50% rate, they will have the resources to avoid doing so.

My amendment 76, which would require a review, neatly coincides with the Opposition’s amendment, so I assume that when my amendment is pressed to a vote they will join us in the Lobby. After all, they have already signed up to my amendment 7, which, I shall explain for the benefit of the Committee, is consequential on the additional rate changes relating to dividend and trust payments, the transferring of retirement benefits to a non-additional rate tax payer and the notional tax credit attached to some capital payments. We look forward to dividing on amendment 76 at the appropriate time.

Figures for November 2011 from the Office for National Statistics showed that the poorest 20% of households spend twice as much of their disposable income—nearly 4%—on petrol duty as the richest 20%, who pay less than 2%. We already know that rural families spend hundreds of pounds more on petrol than urban families, so constituents in rural Wales, where there are lower incomes, are being hit by a double whammy.

Since 2005, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party have called for a fuel duty regulator, through which an advance estimate of UK tax returns would be made. If prices rose faster than expected, a price cap would be introduced, so there would be no windfall tax for the Government. In 2005 and 2008, Labour voted against our amendments, while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats abstained. In 2011, it was the other way round. At least this place is consistent, no matter who is in government. The Federation of Small Businesses has published proposals for a stability mechanism in the last few weeks; the Treasury should at least look at it.

Mr Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned dates when proposals were put forward. There was one year, 2006, I think—it may have been 2007—when no proposal came from anyone for a fuel duty regulator. Why was that?

Jonathan Edwards: I have admitted that we proposed amendments in 2005, 2008 and 2011. The hon. Gentleman is right that we did not do it every year, but every time we made the proposal, the voting record of each of the unionist parties has been consistent.

The 1p off fuel duty announced last year was not a regulator in the way that the Treasury suggested, and the 3p increase in August is most certainly not either. In the continuing poor economic circumstances, I would rather the proposed fuel duty rise in August was cancelled, so that businesses did not have to face that extra cost in these tough times. Families could use that money for their own benefit; that would help them and the wider economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) said, that would be one way of removing a serious drag on economic recovery.

I hardly need explain that my party and I are in favour of maintaining the 50p tax rate for those who earn more than £3,000 a week. Indeed, unlike the overwhelming majority of the official Opposition—there are two honourable exceptions—I put my disagreement with the policy on record in the vote on 26 March. It cannot be right for the Government to offer a tax cut to those who earn the most while announcing a £10 billion cut to the welfare budget. Clearly, we are not all in this together.

16 Apr 2012 : Column 125

Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) rose —

Jonathan Edwards: I will not give way; I am sure that the Front Benchers want to get on with their summing up.

My party and I do not support the freezing or scrapping of age-related thresholds—the so-called granny tax—or the introduction of means-tested child support benefits, whether we have a cliff-edge or a taper. The point of universal child benefit is that everybody with a child receives the benefit, irrespective of their income, because it costs additional money to raise a child.

Schedule 23 of the Bill allows Northern Ireland the right to vary air passenger duty on long-haul flights, but does not provide the same for Wales and Scotland. That appears to be an ad hoc arrangement. As my party has noted consistently, what is good for one part of the British state is good for other parts. For that reason, I have tabled an amendment to the schedule that will give Wales the same powers as Northern Ireland. I look forward to debating the issue on Wednesday—and to having the support of the official Opposition, in view of the position taken by the leader of the Labour party in the Assembly.

The Budget continues the UK’s inequalities and the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. We cannot accept a Budget that offers no prospect of growth, and a Finance Bill that reinforces inequality.

The Chancellor has argued that it is possible to achieve something called “expansionary financial contraction”, under which the economy grows while Government spending is cut. The poster boys for such a strategy are rare. Commentators have pointed to Canada in the 1990s and the Republic of Ireland before that. What these examples had in common, however, was that their fiscal contraction came at the same time as others were enjoying growth. Our major trading partner, the EU, is in some difficulty, and therefore this is a very risky strategy.
If we need any proof of that, let us remember that when the coalition in London began in 2010 expected growth for this year, according to the then newly founded OBR, was 2.8%. On Wednesday, however, the OBR said that growth this year would only be 0.8%. And all this with 90% of the cuts still to come!

Our solution, right from the start of the crisis, was to call for infrastructure spending on roads, hospitals, homes and schools to get people into jobs now and help us in the future. Low interest rates mean that borrowing is as cheap as we are ever likely to see, and that should be used to invest. We welcomed the announcement in the autumn statement of the national infrastructure plan, which included several elements of what we included in our build for Wales programme. I note, however, from the announcement on Wednesday, that the purported figure of £25 billion in the pot to be raised on pension funds has been knocked down slightly.

Something that is likely to hit the Welsh economy in particular is the continued progress of plans towards regional pay for public sector workers. Major employers, such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions, will apparently be in a position to make such a choice later this year. We saw from the pay bands introduced in the Courts Service by Labour in 2007 that Wales and other low-wage economies in the British state are likely to be hit. Although I fully agree that the private sector needs to be helped in Wales, I do not think we will do that by cutting public sector pay.

It was disappointing that the Chancellor once again ignored our calls for a meaningful fuel duty regulator to stop price hikes at the pump. Working families and rural families spend more of their disposable income on travel, so we need to give them all the help that we can, while at the same time developing greener travel alternatives. Sadly, much of what I would have liked to have seen in the Budget is not there—ideas to create jobs through investment, a windfall tax on energy profits to improve housing and a U-turn on the major cuts.

I would also like savings to be made by ending the higher rate relief on pensions, and a Twm Siôn Cati tax on international currency transactions should raise about £16 billion, which we could invest. I would predominantly like to see the Treasury scrap the unjust housing revenue account subsidy scheme in Wales—the only part of the British state where it operates—which means £80 million being taken from the poorest communities in Wales.

The last three decades have shown that the alternative to the austerity cuts will not come by changing the colour of the Government down here in London. The only hope for the people of Wales is for us to break the economic cycle and take on greater responsibility for our own future—to develop our economy, invest where we think is right and fight for a better Wales.

Gyfeillion, mae’n fraint ac anrhydedd i mi i cael eich croesawu chi i Shir Gaerfyrddin ac i Ffos Las, cwrs rasio ceffylau mwyaf newydd ynysoedd Prydain. Fel Aelod Seneddol dros Carwe, mae wedi bod yn bleser gweithio gyda tim Ffos Las, Dai Walter a staff y sefydliad – ac edrychaf ymlaen i ddyfodol disglair i’r fenter. Hwn yw un o gyrsiau mwy modern y byd rasio, gyda cyfleusterau arbennig ar gyfer cefnogwyr a chystadleuwyr.

Fel nifer o gymunedau De Shir Gaerfyrddin, mae’r ardal hon wedi cael ei chreithio gyda’r diwydiant glo brig. Yn wir, hwn oedd safle maes glo brig mwyaf Ewrop. Dyma’r fath o fentrau anghenrheidiol sydd angen i adfywhau ein cymunedau.

Mae’n briodol ein bod ni’n cwrdd ar y safle yma oherwydd heddiw gyfeillion, rydym yn croesawu arweinydd newydd Y Blaid i’n annerch. Fel aelodau rydym wedi cael rhas tri ceffyl ysblennydd, a hoffwn talu teynged i’r tri ymgeisydd am y ffordd adeiladol wnaethon nhw ymgyrchu dros y misoedd diwethaf – ac yn enwedig i Leanne am ei buddugoliaeth.

Leanne, rwy’n edrych ymlaen yn fawr iawn i’ch gwasanaethu chi dros y blynyddoedd nesaf sydd i ddod ac i gyd weithio gyda chi i sicrhau dyfodol gwell i’n cymunedau a’n pobol.

Gyfeillion, roedd y ras arweinyddol yn dangos mae ond Plaid Cymru sy’n cynnig gweledigaeth clir i ddyfodol ein gwlad. Mae’r etholiad wedi ein adnewyddu fel Plaid. Mae’r dyfodol yn un gyffrous. :Plaid Cymru yw polyn totem gwleidyddiaeth Cymru. Ni yw’r Plaid sy’n gosod agenda gwleidyddol ein gwlad – gyda’r pleidiau unoliaethol yn dewis dawnsio i’n cerddoriaeth ni oherwydd ei diffyg gweledigaeth hwythau.

Yr esiampl pennaf wrth gwrs yw Prif Weinidog Cymru. Rwy’n teimlo yn aml y bod ei ddatganiadau yn ‘copy and paste’ o’r hyn y mae’r Blaid hon wedi cyhoeddu rhai misoedd yn gynnarach. O fformiwla Barnett; i bwerau ynni; tal a budd-daliadau rhanbarthol; i dreth Twm Sion Cati. Yn wir pan mae’n dod i faterion sydd heb eu datganoli mae fel bod Carwyn Jones yn ceieio ei orau glas i fabwysiadu agenda gwleidyddol Plaid Cymru. Yr unig broblem wrth gwrs yw nad yw ei gyfeillion yn San Steffan yn cytuno. Mae Ed Balls yn erbyn diwygio Barnett, o blaid lefelau budd-daliadau rhanbarthol, nid yw o blaid treth Twm sion cati chwaith. Llafur wrth gwrs wnaeth cyflwyno tal rhanbarthol yn y sector gyhoeddus i weithwyr llysoedd. Nid yw Aelodau Seneddol Cymreig y Blaid Lafur o blaid datganoli pwerau ynni. Yn wir mae’n well gyda’r Blaid Lafur yn San Steffan adael y pwerau yma yn nhwylo y Ceidwadwyr yn Llundain na phlaid ei hun ym Mhae Caerdydd. Dychmygwch gyfeillion dyna terfyn eu huchelgais – mae’n well ganddyn nhw ymddiried yn y Tories cyn ymddiried yn eu hunain i fod a gafael dros y grymoedd yng Nghaerdydd. Wel ein neges ni i bobl Cymru yw y bydd y blaid hon – Plaid Cymru – wastod yn dewis hunan-lywodraeth i Gymru dros gael ein rheoli gan lywodraeth Geidwadol yn Llundain. Ni yw’r unig Blaid sydd yn cynnig y dewis hwnnw. Fely dywed Alex Salmond ‘Home rule with independence beats Tory rule from Westminster anyday’!!

Yn wir, pan mae’n dod i faterion megis polisi trethiant, budd-daliadau, cyfraith a threfn, darlledu a phwerau sylweddol dros ynni – er gweitha ei grand standing gwleidyddol nid yw Prif Weinidog Cymru o blaid datganoli pwerau i lywodraeth e. Ar bob un o’r meysydd yma mae’n well gan arweinydd llafur yn y Cynulliad adael y penderfyniadau i David Cameron.

Gynhadledd, mae’n anghyfrifol ac yn llwfr i ddweud eich bod yn gwrthwynebu polisiau os nad ydych yn bodlon cymryd cyfrifoldeb dros y materion hynny eich hunain. Mae addewidion gwag Prif Weinidog Cymru ac ymateb y blaid Lafur yn Llundain yn dangos mai nid trwy newid lliw Llywodraeth Prydain i blaid sy’n arddel union yr un agenda gwleidyddol mae achubiaeth pobol Cymru – ond trwy adeiladu ein systemau democrataidd ein hun. Gwichain o’r cyrrion yw ymateb Prif Weinidog ein gwlad i bolisiau Llywodraeth Prydain – nid sefyll cornel ein gwlad.

A wyddoch gyfeillion bod Cymru yn allfori trydan, ond eto mae 30 y cant on pobol yn byw mewn tlodi ynni a mae pobol Cymru yn cael ei cosbu gyda’r billiau tanwydd uchaf yn y Wladwriaeth Brydeinig. Gyfeillion mewn cenedl ynni gyfoethog fel Cymru ni ddylai unrhyw person byw mewn tlodi tanwydd. Fel canlyniad rhydym fel Plaid Seneddol wedi bod yn ymgyrchu i ddatganoli pwerau dros polisi ynni gan gynnwys pwerau cynllunio pwerdau ynni. Cyflwynais deddf i’r perwyl hyn ym Mis Chwefror. Beth oedd ymateb y Blaid Lafur tybiwch? Lladd y ddeddf yn ei gam cyntaf.

Wythnos wedyn wnaeth Prif Weinidog Cymru apelio i ehangu bwerau Llywodraeth Cymru dros orsafoedd cynhyrchu ynni o 50MW i 100MW. Dyma be mae Llafur yn gweld fel sefyll lan dros Gymru – am ddiffyg uchelgais – fel dywed DJ Williams:

“Os gellir dweud fod hawl ddwyfol i unrhyw beth ar y ddaear, yna gyda’r Cymry y mae’r hawl i dir Cymru, nid gydag unrhyw berson estron pwy bynnag ydyw ef.”

Mis Mai gyfeillion fe fydd pobol Cymru yn ethol cynghorwyr sir. Yma yn shir Gar, fe fydd pobol y sir yn cael cyfle i gael gwared o’r ‘closet Tories’ – yng ngheiriau Peter Hain – sydd wedi dominyddu gwleidyddiaeth y shir hon am degawdau. Efallai dylai rhywun wedi ddweud wrtho bod cynghorwyr ei blaid wedi bod yn cadw y ‘closet Tories’ yma mewn grym am yr wyth mlynedd diwethaf!

Ac am weinyddiaeth haerllug sy’n bodoli yma yn shir Gar rhwng yr annibynwyr a’r blaid Lafur. Yn anwybyddu mandat etholiadol Plaid Cymru, fel grwp mwyaf y cyngor shir, i chwarae unrhyw rol blaenllaw ar y cyngor. Mae’n anodd credu bod yr annibynwyr a Llafur gyda’i gilydd yn atal Cynghorwyr y Blaid rhag cadeirio pwyllgorau scriwtini.

Gyfeillion, mae pobol shir Gar yn wynebu cyfle ym mis Mai i gael gwared o Meryl Gravelle unwaith ac am byth. Dyma’r fenyw wnaeth galw y sawl oedd yn protestio yn erbyn colli ei gwasanaethau iechyd yn Llanelli yn ‘rabble’. Dyma arweinydd cyngor wnaeth cwestiynnu ethic gwaith y naw mil o bobol sy’n gweithio i’r sir. Nid yw’r person yma yn deilwng o’r cyfrifoldeb o arwain ein Cyngor Sir – ac mae’n warth bod y blaid Lafur fel gwas bach yn ildio iw meistres tro ar ol tro.

Mis Mai mae yna gyfle i bobol shir Gar ethol Gweinyddiaeth newydd i arwain ein sir dan arweiniad Peter Hughes Griffiths. Mae gan y Blaid tim ardderchog o ymgeiswyr o safon uchel yn barod am yr her o arwain ein Cyngor. Rwyf wedi bod yn ymgyrchu gyda nifer ohonynt yn barod – ac edrychaf ymlaen i gydweithio gyda chi ar ol mis Mai pan fydd y Blaid yn arwain y Cyngor a fyddwn wedi cael gwared o’r closet Tories a’u cefnogwyr yn y blaid Lafur er lles pobol y sir fendigedig hon.

Gyfeillion, ryn ni’n byw mewn amseroedd cythryblus. Mae’r drefn economaidd neo rhyddfrydol a chafodd ei cyflwyno wedi chwyldro Regan a Thatcher a’i mabwysiadu yn grefyddol gyda’r blaid Lafur wedi methu yn llwyr. Ond mae’n bwysig nad ydyn ni’n twyllo ein hunain i feddwl bod ni wedi ennill y dydd -ein bod ar fin cychwyn cyfnod newydd o wleidyddiaeth flaengar gyda chydraddoldeb ar frig yr agenda a lle bydd y niwed sydd wedi cael ei neud i’n cymunedau dros y tri deg mlynedd diwethaf yn cael ei ddad-wneud.

Yn anffodus sdim byd gwell gan y dde gwleidyddol nag argyfwng economaidd er mwyn gwthio ei agenda o leihau buddsoddiad llywodraethol. Maent yn gweld y sefyllfa bresennol fel cyfle euraidd i ddinisitrio gwasanaethau cyhoeddus; lleihau rheoleiddiadau dros y sector breifat; tanseilio y wladwriaeth les a lleihau hawliau gweithwyr. Dyma’r agenda sy’n dominyddu gwleidyddiaeth San Steffan o dan ymbarel a elwir yn gyfrifoldeb ffisgal.

Gyfeillion, does yna ddim rheswm economaidd dros lleihau diffyg cyllideb y Wladwriaeth Brydeinig ofewn pedair blynedd. Wrth gwrs mae angen cydbwyso cyllid y Trysorlys – ond gyda’r ddyled Brydeinig yn cymryd dros ddegawed i aeddfedu does dim rheswm synwhyrol i geisio gwneud hyn o fewn cyfnod Seneddol. Y ffordd i fynd i’r afael a’r sefyllfa yw i fuddsoddi mewn is-adeiladedd i sicrhau galw yn yr economi sydd yn creu swyddi a gyrru tyfiant cynnaladwy economaidd. Dyma oedd y syniad tu ol i’r rhaglen ‘adeiladu dros Gymru’ oedd gan y Blaid yn yr etholiadau Cynulliad blwyddyn diwethaf.

Sgrin mwg yw’r oes o ‘austerity’ i alluogi y consensws asgell dde ymysg y pleidlaiu yn San Steffan i barhau ai criwsad ideolegol. Y peth brawychus i gofio yw bod 88 y cant o’r torriadau eto iw cyflwyno.

Friends, the alternative to the austerity cuts our people are now facing won’t come by changing the colour of the government in London. Our communities have been ravaged by three decades of neo liberal economics that has polarised wealth at an unimaginable scale. The official opposition are led by the two Eds – Balls and Miliband. Sometimes I’m not sure in which order, but that misses the point.

Both Eds of course were key players of the Blair-Brown regime. Starting off as senior advisers before entering government. It is no surprise that the Labour party have already ruled out overturning any of the Tory/Lib Dem cuts.

It’s an incredible situation which comes as a result of a political strategy based on triangulation. The problem with Labour thinking is that they base their political position on being Tory light – placing their compass slightly to the more progressive side. Is it little wonder that Margaret Thatcher once proclaimed that her greatest achievement was New Labour?

You have to ask what’s the point of the next Westminster election. The personalities at the helm might change but the trajectory of political travel will be more or less the same.

Luckily there is a progressive group in Westminster made up of Plaid/SNP and Green MPs and Dafydd Wigley and Dafydd Ellis Thomas in the Lords. With Scottish independence we are going to lose six MPs so as a party we need to increase the number of Plaid MPs in Westminster. It’s going to be a big challenge for the party and our job is to convince the people of Wales that a vote for Labour will herald more of the same and the only possible salvation is the growth of our political institutions in Wales.

And that journey is moving quickly. The magnitude of the Yes vote last March took everyone by surprise. I remember in the week before the referendum Tory MPs telling me that they thought that the ‘no’ campaign would prevail. Westminster was a great place to be after the result just to see the expressions of anguish on many a Tory and Labour MP. The scale of the yes vote means that the game has changed.

In the immediate aftermath of the referendum as we know the UK Government launched the Silk Commission looking at the constitutional question. Its first phase is looking at financial accountability for the Welsh Government – the transfer of fiscal powers.

This is a very important process and I congratulate the Plaid team for the huge amount of work has been put into placing before the commission some very practical and pragmatic ideas.

But what about Labour – the governing party in Wales? They couldn’t even be bothered to submit any evidence. It’s a disgrace that instead of engaging proactively with a process aimed at improving the lives of the people of Wales through better governance – Labour are nowhere to be seen. The reality my friends is that they are split down the middle between their warring factions. They are not in a position I am afraid to lead our people through these dying days of the British state. Over 60 per cent of the people of Wales support Tax varying powers for the Welsh Government. They understand that the only hope for our communities is that our own government is control of the key job creating leavers. Labour’s no economic devolution policy is completely out of tune with the aspirations of our people.

The more I listen to the rhetoric of the Labour party in Wales it is clear their vision for Wales is one based on dependence and fiscal transfers from London. It’s a future based on managed decline. As we rebuild the party under the leadership of Leanne it will contrast severely with our vision of hope based on unleashing the potential of our people and our communities.

Friends events in Scotland mean that there has never been a more exciting time for the national movement in Wales. Whatever the Scottish people decide, be it independence or devo max, there are huge opportunities for us to secure a better deal for our country. We are even led to believe that if the people of Scotland vote no – and polls indicate a 90 per cent approval rating for devo max so it will be quite a turnaround – that there will be further changes to the Scottish settlement. No change in Scotland is therefore not an option.

But beware the dark forces of unionism. Despite the people of Wales and Scotland clearly embracing repatriation of political power from London, there continue to be those that would like to see a return to unitary Westminster control. The Scotland Bill currently going through the Lords contains provisions to return powers to Westminster from the Scottish Government. For the unionist parties – that gothic building on the Thames is sovereign. We say no, the people of our country are sovereign and it is they that will determine their own future.

The no campaign will employ all sort of desperate tactics over the coming few years. The latest is the astonishing claim by Ed Milliband that the British State is a redistributive union. I don’t often choke on my cornflakes, but I did when I read this!

The UK now has the fastest growing gap in income between rich and poor of any country in the European Union, thanks to Labour and the Conservatives. According to a study carried out by the OECD, in 1985 the richest 10% had 8 times the income of the poorest 10%. By 2008, after eleven years of a Labour government, the richest 10% had 12 times the income of the poorest 10%. These are a direct result of policies undertaken by the Tory- Labour tag team in Westminster.

GVA in inner London is the highest in the whole of the European Union at over 110 thousand pounds a year – whilst GVA in the South Wales valleys is amongst the lowest at just over 10 thousand pounds per year.

After three decades of increasing inequality we saw a Budget this week in which those earning more than three thousand pound a week were given a tax break – at the same time real terms pay cuts for public sector workers, an additional ten billion pound cut for the vulnerable and a tax grab on pensioners.

The British State is not a redistributive union – it is a polarising union that works in the interests of the economic elite. The only hope for our communities is to assume more responsibility for our future.

The most powerful message in Welsh politics is ‘equality with Scotland’. It was the battering ram of our referendum campaign last year. Change in Scotland will therefore herald further changes for our country. The unionist parties are already trying to say that somehow Wales is different to our Scottish cousins. Let them face the fury of the ballot box if they start making the case that we are in some way inferior, a second class nation.

What worries the unionist parties the most of course is that the whole constitutional process for the first time is outside their hands. The SNP in achieving their historic majority victory have been able to smash the cynical unionist veto that denied the people of Scotland a voice on their own future. Isn’t it ironic to see the unionist campaign in Scotland after all these years denying an independence vote now demanding one as soon as possible? Pwyll bia hi bois bach – the Scottish people will have their say in due course and your going to have to come up with something better than a campaign based on scare stories that has failed in every corner of the earth from Egypt, Palestine, the Americas, Ireland and India.

Do you know that when the United Nations was created after the Second World War it had 51 members. Today there are 193 members following the inclusion of South Sudan. At its height the British empire controlled a quarter of the worlds land mass and 20% of its population. Today the Britsh state only retains sovereignty over 14 territories and most of these are uninhabited. These facts seem to indicate that the trajectory of travel is only one way.

When you boil the unionist argument down to its bones, essentially what they are saying is that they are against the creation of a partnership of equals on these isles. This message will fail in Scotland in 2014 and will also fail in Wales when our turn comes.

Since 1997 we have come a long way as a country. Last years referendum will be seen as one of the most momentous landmarks in our history.

Gyfeillion I’d like to conclude by thanking Ieuan Wyn Jones for his leadership over the past ten years. Ieuan has played an invaluable role in establishing our country as a legislative democracy. It was he who forced the Labour party to deliver on the One Wales commitment to hold the referendum when Rhodri Morgan had yielded to Peter Hain’s spoiling tactics. We are an emerging state moving towards our self determination..

We are now entering an exciting new phase in the story of Wales and the national movement under the leadership of Leanne.

Events in Scotland mean that everything we have achieved to this date together has been leading to this point. We have the opportunity to achieve our dreams and ambitions. Its going to be a hard slog, but I am confident that Leanne will lead us to our destiny.

Friends, when the history of Wales is written, unionists politicians will merely be a footnote of our history. When we read about the creation of Hungary its Kossuth we remember. When we recall the unification of the Italian nation its Mazzini we read about. In the case of Ireland its figures like Parnell, Pearse, Collins and De Valera that come to mind.

It’s the activists of the national movement that will be the key figures in the history of Wales. Gyfeillion, if we work together I can assure you that our actions in life will echo in eternity!

The other battering ram of the Yes campaign in 1997 was that devolution would bring government closer to the people and that a new culture of inclusive politics would follow.   What has actually happened by deliberate design by Labour is a government of elites.

Post devolution, one of the greatest challenges faced by Wales was the development of a civil society to complement the new Welsh democracy.   Civil Society plays a crucial role in any democratic society – particularly in relation to the scrutiny of policy.   Dr Elin Royles, from the Institute of Welsh Politics at Aberystwyth University has written extensively in her book ‘Revitalising Democracy’ about how the Welsh Government heavily influenced the fledgling Welsh civil society during the first Assembly term.

Basically in simple terms they have had exclusive and cosy relationships with some organisations whilst excluding those that were deemed to be critical.   With Welsh civil society being so weak, most bodies are dependant upon Welsh Government sponsored finance to exist.   As the old adage goes ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’.   Control over civil society of course has enabled Labour to build a post devolution political hegemony with worrying consequences for our democracy.   As someone who has worked in the Third Sector involved in many cross organisations ventures I was amazed how these bodies were filled with Labour activists (particularly the top jobs) – a remarkable achievement for a party that rarely gets more than 40% of the vote.   It damages Welsh democracy that civil society is so closely tied to one party.

The AWEMA scandal therefore in my views raises wider concerns about the trajectory of political travel in Wales.   We are still a very young democracy and there is a natural temptation for nationalists like myself to not rock the boat too much on stories such as this because in the end it will damage devolution as a concept.   However, if Wales is to achieve its political potential – then those of us who cares about our democracy need to point out its current failings.   In my view Labour run Wales by cronyism.

The situation in Wales seems frighteningly similar to that in Japan under the Liberal Democratic Party and in the Republic of Ireland under Fianna Fail – a single party which remains in power or close to power, despite rarely achieving a majority of votes. These are clientist states where confusion reigns as to where the party ends and civic society begins, leading to groupthink and economic disasters in both during recent decades.

One of the Labour party’s greatest failings is its inherent tribal and sectarian instincts.   Despite the huge contradictions that exist within the party – the zealous spiritual belief that the party is more important than anything else is undoubtedly one of the reasons why it has dominated Welsh politics for the bet part of a century.   In Westminster I have been struck by the robotic discipline of the Parliamentary Labour Party, apart from a few honourable exceptions

The AWEMA scandal is deeply disturbing.   Its Chief Executive was an attack dog often unleashed by Labour to attack my party.   His son is a senior Labour activist and was a candidate at the last National Assembly election.

Get ready for a press notice along the lines of ‘lessons have been learnt’.   This isn’t good enough, given the seriousness of what we already know alone, Ministers must be held to account for what has gone on. If that means losing their jobs, so be it.   Not to mix words – it’s obviously a cover up by Labour Ministers to protect one of their own.   We learnt this week that my colleague, former AM Dai Lloyd, had raised concerns conveyed direct to him with a Government Minister who had assured him that he was fully engaged.

I have little doubt that Labour will attack the conspiratorial tone of this blog, and therefore I have a suggestion which could settle the matter.   The severity of the AWEMA scandal in my view warrants decisive action.   The Welsh Government should now publish a full and comprehensive list of all bodies (apart from public services) that it funds directly or indirectly (including sums) noting the political affiliation of all Directors and Senior Staff.   Only then can we impartially judge whether Labour is constructing a one party state in Wales or not.   This should be on a statutory and annual basis and could herald a new dawn of transparent, inclusive and plural politics as envisaged by the pioneers of Welsh devolution.   It would also free civil society to undertake its essential job in any healthy democracy and remove government by patronage.