5. Debate on NNDM6753: The Secretary of State for Wales

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 3:57 pm on 27 June 2018.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Simon Thomas Mr Simon Thomas Plaid Cymru 3:57, 27 June 2018

(Translated)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’m grateful to everyone who took part in the debate. Like Mark Drakeford, I was busily seeing this wizard appearing on the horizon with a wand that could change the course of Welsh politics. But the reality here, of course, is that decisions, or a lack of decisions, taken by the Westminster Government have held back two projects that would have been very important to Wales: the electrification to Swansea, and, secondly, the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay. Although I can accept, of course, that the Conservative Party want to defend the Secretary of State for Wales—I accept that the Government here perhaps doesn’t want to support a motion of this kind because of inter-governmental issues—I can’t accept that it wouldn’t be appropriate for us as a democratically elected Parliament to express a view on the performance of the Secretary of State for Wales. It’s not unconstitutional to do that. It is political—yes, it’s political, but we are here, and we are elected, to be political and to point the finger of political responsibility at where the problem lies.

In this case, I want to pick up on one point made by the Cabinet Secretary. I accept what he says. I accept that he has an argument when he says that we shouldn’t pass a motion of no confidence in a member of another Parliament, but to go as far as to say that this place can’t express no confidence in anyone not elected to this place is going far too far. If a health board in Wales were failing entirely, we would want a vote of no confidence in the administration of that health board, would we not? So, it is appropriate that we use the mechanisms available to us, which are in order, to do that. It takes us into a political mire perhaps, I accept that, but I’m not entirely sure why the Government haven’t been more creative in responding to this, rather than deleting all and replacing—which, to all intents and purposes, agrees with the second part of our amendment that we need to make improvement in the inter-governmental machinery—and allowing Labour backbench Members to push that button to say that they have no confidence in Alun Cairns. It's as simple as that, because that, I know, is how most Members on that side of the Chamber feel.

Now, everyone has taken part in their—