(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 1 to 17. If the House agrees to any of them, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 8
Welsh rates of income tax
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 13 and 17.
Stephen Crabb
Taken together, these amendments remove the so-called lockstep mechanism from the income tax provisions. By removing that mechanism so that the Bill reflects the Silk commission’s recommendation in its part I report, the National Assembly for Wales will be able to set separate Welsh rates of income tax for each band. Subject to a referendum, all three income tax rates would be reduced by 10p, and the Assembly would decide a separate Welsh rate for each band. Those Welsh rates would be added to the reduced UK rates.
The lockstep is probably second only to dual candidacy as the most debated aspect of the Bill; it has been debated at great length in both this House and the other place. I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that I have been prepared to listen to all the arguments and perspectives and, if necessary, to take a different approach on the lockstep. That is exactly what I have done. Before I go any further, I would like again to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) for his hard work and perseverance as Secretary of State for Wales in guiding the Bill through its early stages.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a point of counting the number of times my right hon. Friend used the word “accountability” in describing the Bill; I believe that he stopped at 15. Frankly, though, my right hon. Friend could have used it 15 times more because the Bill was, and is, all about accountability. By being made responsible for raising a proportion of the money that they spend, and allowing the people of Wales to judge them on how they spend it, the Assembly and the Welsh Government will become more accountable to the electorate.
In removing the lockstep, we are removing what was widely seen to be a deterrent to the Welsh Government’s accepting the devolution of income tax in Wales. Given the other financial provisions in the Bill and the full devolution of business rates, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed last week, will be implemented as planned next April, the Assembly would become responsible for raising around a quarter of the money that it spends.
Hon. Members will be aware that last week the Office for Budget Responsibility published a forecast of devolved tax revenues for Wales alongside the autumn statement. That showed that revenue from the 10p of income tax that would be devolved to Wales would net the Welsh Government almost £2 billion in 2014-15—about nine times as much as stamp duty land tax and landfill tax combined. The figures show, in black and white, that through the Bill we are providing the Assembly and the Welsh Government the tools to help grow the Welsh economy and take responsibility for raising a significant portion of the money that they spend. The removal of the lockstep makes it even easier for them to do that.
I welcome the First Minister’s statement in the Senedd last week in which he confirmed for the first time that he would accept income tax devolution. That is indeed progress. But—and there is always a “but”—once again he hid behind the self-imposed “barrier” of funding. I have always said that the powers in the Bill should be as far-reaching and flexible as possible, to provide the Welsh Government with the tools to grow the Welsh economy. Where we have committed to removing obstacles, however, the First Minister continues to erect them. He seems intent on denying the people of Wales their rightful say on whether income tax powers should be devolved, rejecting the opportunity to make the Welsh Government more accountable to those who elect them and refusing to accept responsibility for raising more of the money that they spend.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has outlined the advantages of the devolution of those additional powers. Does he accept that giving more tax-raising powers, and hence reducing other income from central Government, exposes the Welsh Government to greater fluctuations in revenue and makes the long-term planning of services much more difficult?
Stephen Crabb
Part of devolving any tax—income tax or any other fiscal power—is the creation of an incentive for the devolved Government. They get an extra tool and an incentive, which they never had before, to grow that portion of their own tax base.
Crucially, the devolution of income tax in Wales will be done in line with what the Holtham commission proposed for Scotland: the indexed deduction mechanism. That would effectively shield the Welsh Government from UK-wide economic shocks but give them the incentive of holding on to the extra Welsh revenue that they were able to generate. That works both ways: if Welsh income tax grows at a slower pace than that of the rest of the UK generally, there will be a loss, but that is exactly what provides the incentive for the Welsh Government to seek to grow the tax base. The issue is about economic development.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
My reading of the Office for Budget Responsibility figures, published last week, was that the Welsh devolved tax take is projected to increase by half a billion pounds over the next Parliament. If the powers are not fully adopted by the Welsh Government, what would be the increase in the Welsh block during that period?
Stephen Crabb
I cannot provide a specific analysis in line with the question, but I agree with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s point. There are distinct advantages, not only for the Welsh Government, but for businesses in Wales, which want the Welsh economy to grow through the devolution of these taxes.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Let me be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recognition overnight as the Welsh politician of the year.
Does this debate not highlight one of the difficulties with devolution? People only really want half of it—they want the powers, but do not want the responsibilities. There is a statistic showing that a minority of people in Wales recognise that health policy is decided in Cardiff. Does that not illustrate the importance of giving responsibility as well as devolving the powers themselves?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend is exactly right and characteristically articulates his point better than anybody else in the House could. Devolution got stuck. The settlement meant that the Welsh Government were essentially a spending Department with no real responsibility for raising money—in fact, local authorities or parish councils probably had more ability to raise revenue than the Welsh Government. The Bill is all about letting Welsh devolution take the next step forward, which is about fiscal devolution, giving responsibility and enhancing accountability to create a more meaningful relationship between the Welsh Government and the people who elect Assembly Members and Welsh Ministers.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Secretary of State speaks of the incentives that these powers would give to the Welsh Government. Will he be clear, as his predecessor was, as to how they ought to deploy those incentives? His predecessor thought that they should cut taxes in Wales to lower rates than in England. Does he agree?
Stephen Crabb
It is entirely up to Welsh Ministers how they choose to use these tools. I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman says, as I would expect him to be the last person to suggest that the Secretary of State should be directing how these powers are used. I am a Conservative, and, to my core, my aspiration is always to see lower taxes rather than higher taxes. That is a difference in values between Government and Opposition Members. We understand that lower taxes generally create the right circumstances for business growth and for growing wealth in an economy—and all Members, on both sides of the House, should be ambitious to see more of that in Wales.
Sammy Wilson
Does the Secretary of State accept, though, that unless we have the correct formula for deciding what are national impacts and what are local impacts on the tax revenue raised, there is a great danger that Wales could suffer as a result of the fact that fluctuations in income over the economic cycle tend to be much greater in the regions of the United Kingdom than in the United Kingdom as a whole?
Stephen Crabb
I do not dismiss the risk that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but I think he exaggerates its impact on Wales. Alongside any perception of risk in relation to such fluctuations, there is a powerful opportunity for Wales to take greater control over wealth creation inside the nation of Wales. That is an exciting opportunity for the Welsh people, and it represents the next stage of devolution.
This is all about accountability. The former US President Harry Truman famously had on his desk a card that said, “The buck stops here.” I want to see a Welsh Government who stand up proudly and say, “The buck stops here” rather than “The buck is passed there.” That is what this Bill is all about: it creates that enhanced accountability and enhanced responsibility. I repeat my challenge to the First Minister and the Welsh Government: as soon as this Bill receives Royal Assent, take steps to call the referendum and do it as soon as possible. Let us seize the new tools and powers in this Bill with both hands and move forward.
Owen Smith
May I be the second Member of this House to congratulate the Secretary of State on becoming Welsh politician of the year? I think the whole House would agree that anybody who can move from describing devolution as “constitutional vandalism” to being its most ardent supporter on the Government Benches deserves to have his political footwork duly recognised.
These amendments to the Wales Bill best exemplify the damascene conversion that the Secretary of State and his party have undergone on the devolution cause, because they relate to the devolution of income tax varying powers. Just as the Secretary of State used to denounce devolution and has now changed his mind, the Government have performed—he understated the extent of this—a handbrake U-turn on the lockstep.
Stephen Crabb
For clarification, the shadow Secretary of State has accurately reported a quote of mine that appeared in an article in 2007, but he should do full justice to the article by adding that in it I set out exactly the same case for fiscal devolution that I have set out today. I have been entirely consistent over a long period as to how fiscal devolution would enhance the devolution settlement for Wales.
Owen Smith
I am happy to agree that that is how the article went on, but it did indeed describe devolution as “constitutional vandalism”. I shall not forget that, and nor should the country of Wales, for which the right hon. Gentleman is now Secretary of State.
The Government have undertaken a U-turn on this. Let me refresh the House’s memory. Just a few months ago, the Secretary of State’s party wholly opposed the removal of the lockstep. In fact, his Department and the Treasury produced a substantive Command Paper, Cmd 14, which said:
“The Government is firm in its view that the income tax structure is a key mechanism to redistribute wealth across the whole of the UK, which is why the ‘progressivity’—
a word I think they made up—
“of this system is properly determined at the UK level.
The inclusion of the lock-step is also consistent with the principle that fiscal devolution should not benefit one part of the UK to the detriment of another—this could occur if the Welsh Government is able to set a substantially lower rate for higher/additional taxpayers without needing to change the basic rate”.
That is what the Secretary of State seems to be suggesting —that we set lower rates in Wales than in England.
We do not demur from the sentiment expressed in the Command Paper, but nor do we greatly object to the Government changing their mind on this issue. That is partly because they are reflecting the views of all parties in the National Assembly—it is appropriate and good that the Secretary of State has listened to them on this —and partly in the light of the Smith commission findings, which have shifted the debate significantly by proposing 100% devolution of income tax to Scotland. In fact, it could be argued that there is now a case for going further than is proposed in the Bill. It seems unlikely to me that the people of Wales would find it acceptable to be asked in a referendum about having lesser tax varying powers than those on offer in Scotland.
Many of us in the House now recognise that perhaps one of the mistakes of the previous Government was to allow asymmetry to develop between different parts of the UK in earlier rounds of devolution. That has driven pressure for greater change in Wales to reflect changes in other parts of the country. In fact, the case has now clearly been made for a constitutional convention to consider all the issues in the round and to try to derive a lasting settlement acceptable to all parts of the UK.
The Government have not yet agreed to a constitutional convention, and in its absence we must still consider the Welsh Government’s rationale for taking up powers to raise taxes, if those powers were accepted at a referendum.
Jonathan Edwards
Labour’s policy is to have a constitutional convention. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in the event that we have a Labour UK Government, there will be a constitutional convention, and if so, would it halt the Smith process and the proposed Bill for Scotland?
Owen Smith
No. I am saying that if there were a Labour Government, we would have a constitutional convention to look at the whole of the UK. Therefore, wherever we were in the Smith commission proposals, which will continue on their course, that would need to be fed into the convention. A constitutional convention would not need to slow down or stop further devolution to Scotland, but it would have to take cognisance of what was happening in Scotland.
Whatever further changes are made in Wales should reflect what happens in Scotland, because the willingness to accept asymmetry has diminished in Wales and elsewhere. Many of us feel that such asymmetry inherently leads, over time, to instability in the existing settlement.
In the absence of a convention, we must consider why the Government think that Wales should take up the new powers. I want to start not with Labour, but with the current Government. Why do they now feel that the Labour Welsh Government should have an unfettered ability to raise taxes or to lower them to levels below those in England? The Secretary of State has made a couple of soundbites or comments today to illustrate why he thinks we should do so—he talked repeatedly about accountability and responsibility—but I must say that none of them was quite as blunt and honest as the rationale he gave to the Institute of Welsh Affairs a few weeks ago. He said clearly that his objective in providing the tax varying powers was to
“end the politics of the begging bowl in Wales”—
[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, “Absolutely,” but I find that quite an offensive position for him to take. He should not describe Wales as, in effect, a supplicant, and nor should he suggest that we are a scrounger or a shirker asking for handouts. It is not for him to suggest that the cure for the
“politics of the begging bowl”,
as he injudiciously puts it, is to force the Welsh people to raise taxes within their own borders. I do not espouse such a dog-eat-dog, race-to-the-bottom version of Britain, and nor should he.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
The phrase “begging bowl”, as used in this context, originated with former First Minister Rhodri Morgan. Does the shadow Secretary of State completely dissociate himself from that?
Owen Smith
It was deployed in an entirely different context. The implication of the Secretary of State’s pejorative use of the phrase was—I am paraphrasing, but this was broadly what he said in the rest of his speech —that the Welsh Government have not been responsible or accountable, but that they would become so for the first time if tax powers were afforded to them. I have never accepted that the Welsh Government are unaccountable —they are as accountable as any elected Government—and I certainly do not subscribe to the view that Wales has ever held out a begging bowl.
Stephen Crabb
I think that the shadow Secretary of State is getting slightly bogged down and has now resorted to what he calls “paraphrasing” the speech I made to the IWA, although he is actually misrepresenting it entirely. My strong and clear point is that we have had 15 years of devolution in which the dominant theme of Welsh politics has been discussing how much money handed down through the block grant can be spent in Wales. The Bill and the new shift in devolution are about changing the nature of the debate so that it is not just about how much money we have handed down from London, but about raising money within Wales, growing the economy in Wales and seeing Wales stand on its own two feet.
Owen Smith
The Secretary of State makes my point for me because I do not for a minute subscribe to the notion that Wales has money handed down to it from Westminster. That money reflects the taxes paid by Welsh people, and more importantly, in a Union that is meant to be about our ability to share resources, pool risk and redistribute from wealthier to less wealthy parts, it reflects the morality and values of our country. Unfortunately, that morality and that set of values are being undermined by the Secretary of State’s description of the Union as one in which one part is a supplicant and another is handing down money.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be wary of the politics of the hospital pass in Wales? I am always suspicious of Tories bearing gifts, to mix my metaphors, and I do not trust the Conservative party to defend the interests of my constituents.
Owen Smith
Nor do I and, more importantly, nor do the people of Wales—that is why they do not elect Tories in Wales. The very least we owe the Welsh people is that we consider extremely carefully the likely impact of these radical changes to such a cornerstone of the redistributive Union as taxation. They will have an impact on the potential prosperity and well-being of the Welsh people, which is why, although Labour will not oppose the Lords amendments, as we have not opposed the Bill at other stages, we will continue to be clear that we want far more explanation from the Government about how and why they think the powers in question might be deployed in Wales, and what the benefits will be for the Welsh people.
Sammy Wilson
In light of the language about money given to the devolved Administrations being “handed down”, rather than the result of tax revenues, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the redistributive nature of some fiscal policy, does he accept that the danger of the devolution of income tax is that it is an underhand attempt to ensure that less money goes to the devolved Administrations, who will then be forced to raise money through higher taxation in their own jurisdictions?
Owen Smith
In a nutshell, the hon. Gentleman, who is expert in this matter, having been the Finance Minister for his own devolved Administration, explains why we are so concerned about the change. We are worried that the Tories are eager to legislate in haste to foist on the Welsh people the power to raise taxes in Wales.
Our concerns are not just obstacles that the First Minister has placed in the way of the change, as the Secretary of State suggested. They are reasoned questions about the nature of the powers that might be deployed and what their impact will be. We have been clear and consistent in saying that the Government need to meet three tests. It is not really for the Opposition to meet them, because we cannot. It is for the Government proposing the changes to meet them, but it is disappointing that they have not done so. The first test, as the First Minister made clear, is on the baseline for funding and the Barnett formula. That will need to be addressed before the changes can ever be accepted in Wales, because we will not recommend the devolution of income tax varying powers to Wales until we know that we will not be locking in a degree of underfunding. Secondly, we want to be clear that even if the Barnett question is resolved, Wales will be better off.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
Although I share the Secretary of State’s impatience for the Assembly Government to be speedy in addressing the issue once the Bill is passed, does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the Government need to assess the funding shortfall? One way that could be done would be if the Government here and the Assembly Government again commissioned Gerald Holtham, for example, to assess the level of underfunding before we move forward, which I agree with the Secretary of State that we should.
Owen Smith
That is not a bad idea. We have recently heard Government statements about the reduction in the Barnett gap, and one can imagine that there would be such a reduction because public spending in England has been curtailed so dramatically under this Government, although we do not know that for certain. It is beholden on the Treasury to provide evidence of the current gap, and it would be sensible for it to consider making the process independent, not least because I do not think that we would fully trust what it might produce on its own.
Jonathan Evans
The hon. Gentleman should be a bit cautious in his dismissal of the Conservative party, given this week’s opinion polls. His argument is the complete antithesis of the position adopted by the Labour party in Scotland—late in the day, it must be said—which is to agree to the devolution of all tax raising powers to Scotland. Against that background, how is his argument in any way consistent with the position adopted north of the border?
Owen Smith
To paraphrase the infamous, notorious entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is not a question of “For Wales, see England”, “For Scotland, see Wales”, or “For Wales, see Scotland”. We have different countries with different demographics, histories and relative tax takes, and on behalf of the Welsh people, we should sensibly take a position that reflects their best interest, rather than talking an ideological perspective across the board. On the prospects of the Tory party in Wales, I would be a little more hopeful that it might do well were it not for those such as the hon. Gentleman not fighting their seats at the next election. We can read into that what we will.
Owen Smith
Indeed, but I do not suggest for a minute that there is any prospect of my right hon. Friend being replaced by a Tory. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. [Interruption.] It will be a cold day in hell before Neath turns Tory, and ditto Pontypridd.
Let me return to my point about whether Wales will be better off with these tax powers. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we can look to last week’s autumn statement to demonstrate that Welsh tax receipts are now £2 billion less than what was planned by the Chancellor in 2010. That is our proportion of the £66 billion shortfall in tax receipts that is a result of our underperforming economy under this Conservative Government. Had these measures applied in 2010, they would have devolved to Wales about £1 billion of that shortfall. That decline makes a mockery of the notion that such powers make the Welsh Government more accountable, because a poor performance across the board by the UK economy would not have been down to the actions of the Welsh Government. That performance would have been wholly down to a Tory Government in Westminster, and there is little that a smaller economy and country such as Wales could have done to mitigate that effect.
The other thing that those numbers illustrate—again, the hon. Member for East Antrim effectively made this point—concerns the volatility of tax receipts across the UK. That volatility has led to a £66 billion shortfall, and traditionally there are greater fluctuations in peripheral and regional parts of the UK economy than at the centre, and especially in London and the south-east. It is difficult to imagine how a country such as Wales with a small economy could manage the risk associated with that greater volatility. That shows some of the benefit of our being part of a wider Union, and it makes clear the dangers and risks associated with disaggregating that Union.
Jonathan Edwards
I watched with great interest the hon. Gentleman’s prophecy of doom on “Sunday Politics”. I have also read the OBR report and looked at all the tables on the Welsh devolved figures, and they do not reflect his claims about a £1 billion loss. Indeed, the only table on this issue in the report suggests that the Welsh devolved tax base will increase over the next five years by £500 million. The shortfall that he mentions might be as a result of the raising of income tax personal allowances that has been announced by the UK Government, but the Silk commission made it clear that the indexed deduction method for the partial tax raising arrangement in the Bill means that that would not come into effect. Is not the hon. Gentleman guilty of scaremongering? Project fear is alive and well in Wales once again.
Owen Smith
No, it is project reasoned analysis of the numbers, and that project shows clearly a £66 billion shortfall over the past five years and a projected further shortfall across the UK over the next five years. We will see a worse performance in terms of corporate and income tax receipts across the UK as a result of the low- wage, deeply insecure, second-rate economy that the Tory Government are building. Wales has been particularly ill served by what has happened because of the additional fragilities of our economy due to our industrial heritage and the preponderance of low-wage jobs in Wales.
The reality is that—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State shakes his head, but he should think about this. He said earlier that the indexed method cited in Holtham means that Wales would effectively be incentivised to grow its tax base at a faster rate than England’s to enjoy uplifts under these powers. The truth is that over the past five years the Welsh tax base has declined at a faster rate than that of England, as the figure is 4.8% in Wales whereas the UK average is 4.2%. That means that Wales would have been worse off under the indexation had the provisions applied in the last five years, which is a further illustration of the need for the Government to undertake some proper, detailed analysis to let the Welsh people know whether we would be better or worse off.
Owen Smith
My hon. Friend reinforces my point. We know that the Welsh economy has historic weaknesses because of the decline in heavy industry, and its distance from London and the powerhouse of the south-east. Those are well understood, but they are not reflected in the debate that we are having, which is largely politically motivated.
Some in Wales argue that we do not need a referendum to decide this matter, but we think that the Welsh people should have a debate and ultimately take the decision on what would be a radical change. The debate cannot be driven by the Tory party’s desire to insulate itself against the charge that it has reduced Welsh budgets by 10%, which it has; or by the need to support the Tory objective of reducing public spending to levels we have not seen since the 1930s, as was manifest last week; or even by the wish to sustain a partisan argument of English votes for English laws. All three of those rationales feature as part of the Government’s motivation for this debate, and we are disappointed that they have not provided any real response to these questions throughout the passage of the Bill.
It will now be for the Welsh Labour Government to consider what is best for the Welsh people. I have no doubt that they will do so using Welsh Labour values and thinking about the benefits for the Welsh people, as well as about how we deliver equality and improvements to the lot of working people across the UK.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the occasion of the Bill’s return from the House of Lords in much improved form, if I may say so. In general, I welcome the Bill although I am concerned about some elements. Perhaps it is a Welsh trait that we can never completely agree on things, and I want to touch on one issue where I am not in agreement.
What I welcome in particular is the new reality of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition shaping the process and future of devolution and driving forward, leaving—if I may say so to the shadow Secretary of State—Labour languishing in its wake. He may describe that as a U-turn, but that is the reality today. I want to make just one important point, which is very much a personal view. I disagree with one specific aspect of the Bill, but I would like to emphasise my overall support: it is a very good and welcome Bill.
I would like to put my point in context by painting some background to my personal journey in the devolution debate. I was not in favour of the form of devolution on offer in the referendum on 18 September 1997. It seemed to me to be creating a permanently unstable constitutional settlement. A settlement is the last thing it was. I attended the count in Llandrindod Wells leisure centre, watching the TV coverage as the decision of the voters of Wales came through and they decided in favour of establishing a national assembly for Wales. I drove home knowing that there was no going back. The people had spoken, albeit by a tiny margin of 0.6%. We were now facing an entirely new question: how would devolution work in practice? I concluded immediately that the new Welsh Assembly would eventually become a law-making, tax-raising Parliament based in Wales. That has influenced my thinking on the issue ever since. I did not want to be dragged, kicking and screaming, and trying to refight the 1997 devolution referendum. I preferred to get ahead of the curve and identify where we were going to get to, and move towards that in a positive and smooth way. That was not a change of mind, but a recognition of a new reality.
Jonathan Evans
My hon. Friend, through his service in the Assembly, has been one of the individuals who has encapsulated the position adopted by the Conservative party. Although the party battled against establishing the Assembly in the first place, and although the margin was only 4,000 in a million, nobody could claim other than that my hon. Friend and the party in Wales have not been dragged back to the previous debate, but have moved forward and sought to make a success of the devolution settlement.
Glyn Davies
Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the contribution from those on the Front Bench when we started today’s debate.
The Government of Wales Act 2006, introduced by the Labour party, moved things forward quite a lot, as did the 2011 referendum in relation to tax-raising powers. The Wales Bill takes us further down the road to what I consider to be the inevitable conclusion, but not far enough for me on tax levying responsibility. I will be blunt about my view: it is a mistake that the Bill requires a referendum before devolving responsibility for levying part of income tax collection to the Welsh Government. That is properly an issue for a general election. The Welsh Government are not financially accountable to the people of Wales until they are responsible for levying a degree of income tax. It is also my personal view that financial accountability through responsibility for income tax is so fundamental to a proper, grown-up National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Government that we should not devolve extra responsibility until this principle is accepted—no financial accountability, no new powers.
The First Minister, and perhaps Labour Members here on the Opposition Benches, do not want financial accountability. How convenient it is to bask in the credit of every spend that the people of Wales approve of and blame the UK Government for every difficult decision needed to bring order to the United Kingdom’s finances. We see the First Minister in Wales scrabbling around for any reason he can come up with to avoid committing to a referendum. First, it was lockstep, which is removed by the Bill. Then it was the Barnett deficit, until it became clear that it is a rather smaller Barnett deficit than we thought. I hear now that air passenger duty might be another reason, and if that is resolved, there will be another one. The reality is that Welsh Labour in Cardiff is desperate to avoid financial accountability. It does not want to be properly financially accountable to the Welsh people.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument and thinking about what the Labour spokesman said. When the Silk proposals were being discussed, the First Minister of Wales was adamant he did not want air passenger duty devolved, but suddenly he has woken up and is desperately keen on it. It depends what day of the week we are in.
Glyn Davies
I would be more encouraged if I thought the day of the week was the reason. I think it is a desperate attempt to find one more hurdle to prevent us from moving towards financial accountability.
During the passage of the Bill, I accepted it would include a commitment to a referendum on devolution of income tax levying powers. It was a recommendation of the all-party Silk commission, and in 1997 there was a referendum on this issue in Scotland. In my view, however, the Silk commission was wrong, and weak in its recommendation on this point. Devolving income tax powers is not as big a change as is being made out, and it is entirely appropriate that it be decided at a general election; it does not need a referendum. If a Welsh Labour Government acted irresponsibly, which they might well do, they would quickly be turfed out of office. It is much easier to sit in blissful impotence, complaining.
I would like to see manifesto commitments by my party, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru to revisit this issue, perhaps in a Wales Bill early next Parliament and before the Assembly elections in 2016, and to devolve income tax. We should put an end to Labour’s easy ride in Wales and make the Welsh Government properly fiscally accountable to the Welsh people. Only then will devolution grow up and reach its inevitable, logical conclusion.
Jonathan Edwards
It is a pleasure to make a short contribution to this debate, primarily to welcome these Lords amendments, which mirror amendments that were tabled by Plaid Cymru when the Bill passed through the Commons and which conveniently the three Westminster parties voted against at the time—they say a week is a long time in politics, but we are only a few months down the line and there has been a complete change of position. In that regard, I congratulate the new Secretary of State on being far more progressive than his predecessor.
Mr Mark Williams
The hon. Gentleman will remember that there were exceptions. I was pleased to support Plaid Cymru’s lockstep amendment. I would not profess to be Mystic Meg or a trailblazer, but people listened to the message put forward by him and others, and to their credit, the Government changed their mind.
Jonathan Edwards
I stand corrected. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has voted with us several times and broken his party Whip.
The lockstep, of course, was a handcuff measure that would have made the powers in the Bill unusable—the only plus side was the extra borrowing capacity it would have given to the Welsh Government—and removing it creates greater flexibility, which is obviously to be welcomed. When we were debating the Bill in the Commons, however, I warned the Government that events in Scotland would supersede it, and that has indeed been the case. The Union survived by a thread, and even then only following the famous vow promising home rule, devolution max or something as close to federalism as possible. In that regard, the Smith commission was extremely disappointing.
Westminster has one chance left to save the Union, or the British state as it is currently constituted, but the Smith commission is playing into the hands of pro-independence campaigners in Scotland. It nowhere near delivers the powers promised in the vow, but it is far in advance of what the UK Government are offering to Wales in the Bill. The signature policy of the Smith commission is 100% income tax devolution and the ability of the Scottish Executive to set as many bands as they want at whatever level they want. Indeed, my party put forward such an amendment during proceedings on the Wales Bill in the spring.
Jonathan Edwards
The commission’s remit is not one of its own choosing, but the SNP decided to act in the best interests of the country and move the process forward. Making out that the Smith commission proposals are what were included in the vow is not right. It was essentially home rule or devolution max, and on any definition of devo max, it means the full devolution of all powers apart from defence, foreign affairs, the monarchy and military policy. That is not included in the Smith commission proposals, which were less significant than what was promised to the people of Scotland on the eve of the referendum.
As I was saying, the Smith commission is vastly more progressive in its trajectory of travel, offering 100% of income tax in comparison with the Wales Bill offer of only a paltry income tax sharing arrangement—and even then, only following a referendum many years down the line.
Geraint Davies
(Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if Wales has its own powers to set both a higher and a lower rate of tax and it chooses to reduce the higher rate so that a lot of millionaires move to Monmouthshire, the overall tax take to the United Kingdom would be dramatically reduced because those people would all evade tax by moving to Wales? Does he think that is a good thing to set in motion, and does he have any idea whether the Government have calculated the cost of that possibility?
Jonathan Edwards
I am interested in this line of tax harmony across the UK being put forward by the Labour party. In Wales, of course, we had at the last count 22 local authorities all setting different rates of council tax, and we are a key part of a single market across the European Union with its different members setting different tax rates. If Labour Members’ arguments were to hold water, surely they would argue for tax harmonisation across the whole of local government in Wales and across all member states of the European Union. It does not make much sense to me.
Jonathan Edwards
I think I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s point.
In conclusion, the general election is fast approaching, and I can assure this House and the people of Wales that Plaid Cymru will fight that election on the basis that we will not allow our country to be treated as a second-class nation by the Westminster establishment.
Geraint Davies
I come here with an open mind about these tax issues, but I must confess that I have major concerns because I fear that the incentive for the Government to devolve tax powers is not one of freeing the nation of Wales to make its own decisions, but one of distracting attention from the fact that Wales is grossly underfunded both in revenue under the Barnett formula by some £300 million and in capital receipts. If we had our fair share of HS2, for instance, we would have an extra £2 billion.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman and I are both Swansea city supporters and I am grateful that he has been kind enough to allow me to intervene.
Geraint Davies
I can see that the hon. Gentleman is wearing black and white.
Jonathan Edwards
This is my wedding suit, or rather the suit I had with my wedding suit. It has led to much comment. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I have no idea what is being talked about here. We are not discussing Swansea football club and we are not discussing suits or weddings. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is supposed to be making an intervention on the tax-raising powers in the Wales Bill. Perhaps he could face me, so I could hear him; and, secondly, he could make sure that his intervention is in order.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for saving me because my good friend was distracting me on the basis of some spurious points. Is it the position of the Labour party, should it form the next UK Government, that HS2 will be seen as an England-only project and not a UK-wide project, thus giving Wales its rightful consequentials of £2 billion, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr is now trying to tempt his friend—having claimed that his friend was tempting him—to go down a route that we are not discussing today. We are debating Lords amendments on the tax-raising powers in the Wales Bill. Geraint Davies now has the Floor.
Geraint Davies
Let me publicly assure Mrs Edwards that the wedding was not spurious. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on both his point and his suit. It is a very nice suit, in black and white.
As I mentioned earlier, the differential rates pose a real problem. There is a presumption that Wales will not lower the higher rate, but a very small number of people in Wales earn more than £150,000 a year. They currently pay 45%, and will pay 50% under a new Labour Government. In theory, if a new Labour Government in Cardiff or Westminster—or any other Government, for that matter—reduced the top rate and a large number of people simply slipped across the border, they would be evading large amounts of tax. Obviously Wales would benefit, because more money would be coming in, but for the overall tax-paying community, the amount would go down, and that is of legitimate concern.
I should like to hear from Ministers what evaluation the Office for Budget Responsibility has made, producing different forecasts with different scenarios. My guess is that it has made none, and that this legislation is being rushed through in the hurried aftermath of what happened in Scotland, so that Wales can be given something comparable to the quick settlement that was made following electoral concerns in Scotland as we move towards a general election. That is not the way in which to establish a new constitutional settlement and a settled financial regime. It is all very well the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) saying “You want harmony, we have difference, so it does not matter what happens.” Such changes and differences bring pressures that are not settled, and which will be replicated in the future.
Air passenger duty has been mentioned. Other things being equal, if someone says, “Can I set my own air passenger duty?”, the response might be, “That’s brilliant: we can raise some money.” But what if Boris Johnson in London says, “Hold on, there is a precedent here, I want the money for Heathrow, and I am going to lower air passenger duty”, which is what he has said about stamp duty? We are talking about major shifts in the financial powers across the Union, which will unsettle the Union itself. Obviously we want a devolved settlement that is stable rather than ever-changing, rather than the setting in motion—by means of a quickstep to avoid short-term political advantage—of a system that will unravel into chaos.
I know that there seems to be consensus across the Floor of the House today. It is a case of “Don’t worry; we will have a referendum, and hopefully it will be all right on the night.” What I have just described will probably not happen in Wales, because what prospect is there of our suddenly having five UKIP Assembly Members and a regional list? Oh, there is such a prospect; well there we are. What prospect is there of a newly emerging rainbow alliance—perhaps a very unfortunate rainbow with not a crock of gold but a crock of something much more unpleasant at the bottom of it, which will generate a cynical, unfair tax proposition that will lead us back into the dark ages? That is possible. [Interruption.] Obviously there is agreement, as laughter leads the room.
Sammy Wilson
I am glad to learn that the hon. Gentleman has now joined the Unionists in his heart, but does he accept that once we start to disaggregate the fiscal arrangements for the United Kingdom, real constitutional issues become involved? The danger is that the more fiscal powers are devolved to regional administrations, the looser the Union will become. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This is ridiculous. The debate is degenerating into some sort of Christmas party. Members are just shouting at each other. This is a proper debate on Lords amendments. Members who have been in the House for a long time know that heckling, or comments from a sedentary position, are not acceptable. Mr Davies, I should be really grateful if you would now focus on the points in the Bill, so that we can hear the rest of your comments, followed by the Secretary of State’s conclusion. I shall do my best to ensure that you are not interrupted, or tempted to answer questions that are not asked formally in the Chamber.
Geraint Davies
Thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The focus of this debate is the differential between the lower and the higher rates—how that moves up and down and squeezes in and out, and what the implications of it are. In terms of the last intervention, the implications are that if that gives rise to great differences between the two rates across the border—or, indeed, across the Scottish or Northern Ireland border—it will generate distortions, not just on the border itself, but in terms of investment decisions, where people choose to live and work, and social security arrangements, whether they are devolved or not. It will extend beyond personal taxation because corporations coming in will bear in mind what they think their workers are going to be paying. As has been mentioned, therefore, corporation tax is part of that broader conversation.
The Government are looking to give corporation tax flexibility for Northern Ireland because Ireland has got it. We could then follow through and say that perhaps Scotland should have it or perhaps somewhere else, and we would end up again with a bidding war downwards where—as I have just mentioned for income tax—the overall corporation tax-take for the UK would go down. At a time when corporations are migrating based on research and development and access to Europe as opposed to corporation tax rates, maybe this is the wrong route to follow, when taken together with income tax.
Geraint Davies
That is an interesting point, but it does intrinsically depend on the elasticity of demand. At a time when corporation tax is already the lowest in the G8, I suggest that inward investors are not looking to Britain to lower its corporation tax and making a marginal decision to invest. They are looking at the level of research and development and the prospects of being part of Europe. One issue for inward investors is the uncertainty of a referendum ending up with us as a sort of chip shop England floating out into obscurity with UKIP and the Tories.
In my view, if we cut corporation tax again there will be a net reduction in corporation tax revenues. On the income tax issue, I have an open mind. I am just throwing forward some of the scenarios whereby we can lose out in England and in Wales and making a point, which I ask the Minister to respond to in his summing up. I want to know what analysis has been done of the potential downside to the Exchequer of Wales reducing the top rate of tax and people migrating to Monmouth? What are those numbers and what consideration has he made? My guess is that he has made no consideration, and if so we should not be hurtling ahead in this way.
Stephen Crabb
I will be very brief as there is another set of Lords amendments that we need to debate.
We spent most of this debate not debating the specifics of the Lords amendments about the removal of the lockstep. Most of the time has been spent listening to the weight of arguments, largely from Labour Members, against fiscal devolution full-stop. So we end the parliamentary passage of the Wales Bill exactly where we started: with three parties in this Chamber recognising the potential benefits to Wales of devolving a portion of fiscal powers—we are not talking about a full step down the road of full fiscal devolution, but a strong step forward —and one party resolutely digging in, trying to pretend that there is some kind of plot or conspiracy; we have had all those words and that language used before.
Stephen Crabb
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who was rightly recognised last year as the MP of the year.
Mr Llwyd
And I am intervening on a Member of even higher status.
Is it not interesting that the excuse being put forward by those on the Labour Front Bench is that they need to sort out Barnett? For the last 20 years or so I have been arguing about the need to sort out Barnett when the Labour party denied that there was a problem.
Stephen Crabb
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We end the parliamentary passage of the Bill exactly as we began it, with Labour trying to place even more hurdles in the way of devolving a portion of income tax. You would have to be Colin Jackson to clear all the hurdles that the Opposition are trying to set up.
Stephen Crabb
I will not, because there is another group of Lords amendments to discuss.
I should like to finish by paying particular tribute to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). He set out some powerful arguments, and has done so from a position of real credibility, having been an Assembly Member. He has been ahead of the curve on many occasions in recognising the strategic direction that Welsh devolution needs to go in and the benefits that can be accrued to Wales by taking sensible, moderate and pragmatic steps forward. On that note, I shall bring my remarks to a close.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.
Lords amendments 2 to 13 and 17 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.
Clause 13
Proposal for referendum by Assembly
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 15 and 16.
Alun Cairns
These amendments provide that, when a resolution to hold a referendum on income tax powers is moved in the National Assembly for Wales, the Assembly must state as part of the resolution whether the voting age for that referendum is to be 16 or 18. During the Bill’s passage through the other place, a number of peers sought to extend the franchise in Wales to 16 and 17-year-olds. They highlighted the fact that young people in Scotland had been able to vote in the independence referendum, but young people in Wales would not be able to vote in a referendum on income tax powers. I pay tribute to the younger voters of Scotland who actively registered and voted in that referendum. I know that many people felt that the involvement of 16 and 17-year-olds helped to reinvigorate the political process and the political parties, and I understand why the Bill has reignited the debate on these issues.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The Minister has mentioned the registration of young voters in Scotland. What was done there to get the registration rates so high was great. Is he aware that the registration rate for 18-year-olds in England and Wales is as low as 55%, so if this provision goes ahead, we will really have to work hard to get the registration rate up?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Bill contains measures to encourage the Assembly to engage with younger people and encourage them to register, should it wish to extend the franchise in the referendum on income tax varying powers.
Chris Ruane
Has the Minister heard of an organisation called Bite the Ballot? It can go into sixth forms and register 100% of the students at a cost of only 25p per registration. Does he think that the Assembly—and, indeed, the UK Government—should be working closely with organisations such as Bite the Ballot to get the registration rate up?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am not familiar with that organisation, so it would not be right for me to endorse its activities at this stage. Clearly, however, any activity that encourages people who are eligible to vote to do so is broadly positive, and I would encourage the Welsh Government, the Assembly and the UK Administration to engage with a range of organisations and bodies to support that aim further.
Jonathan Edwards
The Minister is right to say that the referendum in Scotland reinvigorated the political process there, but that is because it was on a definitive issue. The proposed referendum for Wales is on a very technical point—the partial income tax arrangement—and is it not a danger that that is hardly going to excite the masses? Does that indicate that if we are to have another referendum in Wales, it has to be on something meaningful which is going to alter radically the devolution settlement?
Alun Cairns
We spent the earlier part of this debate discussing Lords amendments relating to the referendum, and I believed that the hon. Gentleman, in his usual positive way, as well as Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, thought that the referendum on income tax varying powers would be definitive. It gives a great opportunity for political parties to sell the great prospect that lower taxes could bring to Wales, and the resulting wealth-creating opportunities.
Jonathan Edwards
My point is that if we are to have a referendum, it needs to be on a point of principle, and the principle of fiscal devolution has been conceded already in the Wales Bill with the devolution of the minor taxes.
Alun Cairns
I am not sure where this is going, but I accept that the engagement of young people is exceptionally important. The purpose of this Lords amendment is to devolve the power for the referendum to the Welsh Assembly, and it can therefore make judgments accordingly.
Glyn Davies
I questioned the need for a referendum. Although we accept that it is part of the Bill, does the Minister think there may be a possibility at some future stage of getting to a position where we can proceed with this income tax raising power, despite Labour’s opposition, by including it in a general election manifesto and not having a referendum?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I pay tribute to him for his speech. The debate on devolution is moving quickly and the referendum in Scotland has changed the debate across the whole of the UK. It is up to each political party to make its judgment. It is almost certain that there will be a Wales Bill in the next Parliament, whoever is in government. There will be an opportunity for him to make the case at that stage, and for each political party to make the case leading up to the election and include an element relating to that in its manifesto.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
On the amendment that allows the Assembly to decide on the franchise for the referendum on tax powers, does the Minister agree that allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on the tax issue and then not allowing them to vote in a subsequent Assembly election would send a very odd message about trust in young people?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not agree with him on that specific point. The Wales Bill provides the opportunity for the Assembly to introduce a referendum on tax varying powers, to the degree that we have already considered. That will extend the franchise specifically in this area. It learns the lessons from Scotland and creates the opportunity for us to reinvigorate young people in this area. However, the debate on the franchise in general for other elections is very different; there is no general consensus on that across all parties in the House and it is a constitutional matter that will be ongoing. It is not part of this Bill, but I have no doubt that it will form part of future debates that many parties will want to have.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Further to the points made by the hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), extending the suffrage down to 16 and 17-year-olds could indeed be part of a manifesto commitment. Such an approach might avoid the problem of the referendum being on a narrow issue to do with tax and of this measure being in one Wales Bill, and it would replicate the commitment made by the leader of the Labour party this week to do just that.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but that is a major constitutional change covering lots of other political areas and it is well beyond the scope of this Bill. I am seeking to address amendments that will allow the Assembly to make progress in this area, should it wish to do so. It is up to the Assembly to make its own decisions. This provision devolves the power for it to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. However, it is important to recognise that there is no consensus across parties on the issue of changing the franchise to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections in general.
In the specific case of the income tax referendum, the Government have listened to those who have called on them to look afresh at the issue. When the Secretary of State took office, he said that he wanted to be pragmatic and to listen to the views of the people. Part of that pragmatism is recognising the impact that the Scotland referendum had on politics across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Huw Irranca-Davies
To assist the debate, may I use the example of a 96-year-old person whom I met on Sunday? He was receiving the Ushakov medal for his work on the Arctic convoys. At the age of 14, he enlisted with the merchant navy and spent six months training on HMS Warspite and then sailed up the Amazon nine months later. He was certainly ready to vote, and so were the students who met me in Parliament last week to discuss the importance of voting at the age of 16 and 17. Let us just bite the bullet and do it.
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and to the two constituents in my own constituency who have recently received medals from the Russian Government. None the less, he makes a point that goes well beyond the scope of the Bill, and that will be part of an important debate in the future. He will be able to make his point again when the time comes.
Mr Mark Williams
How are we to tell constituents that we are, on the one hand, allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, but on the other, denying them the franchise to vote in general, local or Assembly elections? How would the Minister explain that inconsistency? I suspect that after this amendment, which I very much welcome, we will need some answers to that question.
Alun Cairns
I suggest that the age of majority is different for different processes across the United Kingdom. It is a major constitutional change to extend the franchise for all elections. The scope of this Bill is specific about extending powers to the Welsh Assembly, and it is for the Assembly to decide. Who knows, the Welsh Assembly may not decide to extend the franchise to younger voters. It is up to it to decide on a referendum for income tax varying powers in Wales. That is the answer that the hon. Gentleman might wish to give to his constituents. This measure is not about extending the franchise to 16-year-olds, but about granting the power and the opportunity for the Assembly to decide on that basis.
Geraint Davies
It is one thing to say that there is a strong case for people of 16 to have a vote as they have a general knowledge of politics in the round and can make an informed decision, but the argument we are trying to make is whether young voters who have never voted can suddenly grasp the technicalities of setting different rates at different levels and what that implies. That is not much of an encouragement to enter the world of democracy. It is a highly technical issue. Will the Minister now at least serve notice on the fact that he will be championing a general franchise for people of 16 to vote in future elections?
Alun Cairns
I think the hon. Gentleman is underestimating the capacity of young people to grasp technicalities. I have far more confidence in younger people to be able to consider such matters. He makes an important point, but it could easily be made in another debate. This is about extending the power to the Assembly to decide, and not about extending the franchise to young people per se. We are simply devolving the power. The Assembly has had a vote on extending the franchise to younger voters, and there was a majority in favour of it, but when it comes to make its own choice specifically on a matter such as this, who knows what will ultimately come forward.
As a result, on Third Reading in the other place we tabled amendments to allow the Assembly to decide whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in an income tax referendum. As the volume of interventions we have heard indicates, this is the first opportunity the House has had to consider the matter, and I look forward to hearing the contributions that are to follow. It is the Assembly that will decide when to call a referendum, and it is right that it should decide who can vote in it. The amendment puts that decision in the hands of the Assembly, just as it was put in the hands of the Scottish Parliament for September’s referendum.
These amendments also provide that if the Assembly resolves that the voting age is to be lowered to 16, the resulting order to be laid by the Secretary of State would also provide for the creation of a register of young voters. That register would include those who will have attained the age of 16 on the date of the income tax referendum and those age 17 who are not already listed on the register of local government electors as an attainer—that is, a 17-year-old who will turn 18 before the next electoral register is published. The important point is that those who have attained the age of 16 on the date of the poll will be eligible to vote in an income tax referendum if they appear on either the register of young voters or the register of local government electors.
I should also be clear about what these amendments do not do. They do not devolve competence over the wider franchise to the Assembly, as I have previously stated, and they do not allow the Assembly to decide the voting age for any poll other than that for an income tax referendum. The franchise for elections in Wales remains solely within the power of this Parliament. I know that there are strongly held views on both sides of the House about reducing the voting age—we heard some of them earlier. I want to reassure hon. Members who might be concerned that these amendments set a precedent for future elections that they do not. It is important to underline that they do not set a precedent. They relate specifically to an income tax referendum in Wales, and to no other poll. They give the Assembly a choice for that referendum. If and when a trigger vote is held, it would be for the Assembly to decide whether the voting age will be 16 or 18. I therefore ask the House to support these amendments.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I am pleased to put on record Labour’s support for the Lords amendments to clause 13 and schedule 1, which will enable the Welsh Government to set a voting age of 16 in a future referendum on income tax powers. Labour believes that the National Assembly for Wales should have responsibility for its own electoral arrangements. Lords amendment 14 will insert a new subsection (1A) into clause 13 to provide that if the First Minister or a Welsh Minister moves a resolution in the Assembly under clause 13(1)(a) requesting that an order be made under clause 12 to cause an income tax referendum to be held in Wales, that resolution must state whether the voting age at such a referendum is to be 16 or 18.
I have long been a supporter of votes at 16, on which Labour Members have provided a strong lead. I pay tribute particularly to Julie Morgan, a former MP and now Assembly Member for Cardiff North, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for their campaigning on the issue. We saw the success of allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to take part in the Scottish independence referendum. Following the Smith commission, responsibility for electoral matters is on the cards to be devolved to Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the leader of the Labour party, has urged the UK Government to ensure that that happens in time for the 2016 elections to the Scottish Parliament. Control over electoral arrangements should likewise be devolved to Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Lords amendments reflect our belief that electoral arrangements should be devolved to Wales and our commitment to extending the franchise for all elections to 16 and 17-year-olds. Furthermore, this week my right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear that a future Labour Government would legislate to lower the voting age to 16, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s position on that issue. We would also legislate to devolve electoral arrangements to the Welsh Assembly.
Jonathan Edwards
Plaid Cymru tabled amendments similar to those that the hon. Lady mentions during the Bill’s passage through this House, but I do not recall Labour supporting us. Has there been a sea change in Labour party policy since then?
Nia Griffith
I have made it clear what our policies are.
With the advent of individual voter registration and the worry that many people, including many young voters, will fail to register under the new rules, which was a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), lowering the voting—
Chris Ruane
A good way of ensuring that there is 100% registration of young people, instead of the current registration rate of 55%, would be if, at the same time as they are issued with a national insurance number at the age of fifteen and three quarters, they were automatically registered to vote.
Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Lowering the voting age to 16 could provide an impetus for registration campaigns in schools, as all young people are in compulsory education until 16. Such campaigns would be another opportunity to encourage young people to register to vote before their 16th birthday, and most would have at least one opportunity to use their vote before leaving home for university or job opportunities elsewhere.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that as well as a drive to get registration as high as possible, efforts should be made to teach civics in schools to let pupils know the importance of the vote and the issues that they will be voting on?
Nia Griffith
Indeed. The Welsh Government have made significant progress on that matter with the Welsh baccalaureate.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental inconsistency in the Government’s position? I totally agree with their wish to devolve responsibility to the Welsh Assembly on matters to do with the referendum, but why cannot there be the same devolution in respect of the age at which people vote in Welsh Assembly elections? It is nothing short of patronising to 16 and 17-year-olds to say, “You might be able to vote in a referendum, but not in constituency or regional-based Assembly elections.” It makes no sense.
Nia Griffith
Perhaps the Minister will clarify that later.
In my long experience as a teacher, I always found that young people are ready to engage in discussion on a range of issues, and I have every confidence that 16 and 17-year-olds can be as well informed as other adults in respect of voting options. They have access to a far wider range of media and sources of information than back in 1969, when the voting age was last lowered. Indeed, when many of us were at school, our only access to current affairs came through being encouraged to read the daily papers in the school library.
Sixteen-year-olds can join the armed forces and, with parental consent, get married. Many of them are active in the world of work, whether full or part time, and are therefore subject to employment law and health and safety law, or the lack thereof. They are subject to the law on national insurance contributions and income tax. It is wholly appropriate that the Bill should allow the Welsh Government to state in a resolution to cause an income tax referendum whether the age for qualifying to vote in that referendum should be 18 or 16. We support the Lords amendments.
Geraint Davies
In general, for the reasons that we have just heard, I am in favour of reducing the voting age to 16, both because of the increased awareness of young people and because the focus of budgetary control and discussion in the parliamentary arena will shift more towards education and investment in our future. My concern about this move in isolation, with 16-year-olds being allowed to vote on the highly technical issue of marginal tax rates and thresholds, is that the turnout in the referendum will be low, and the turnout of 16 to 18-year-olds will be extremely low and may discredit some of the excellent arguments that have been made for reducing the voting age to 16. I wonder what efforts the Government will make to educate these prospective voters so that they have an informed view about this technical issue.
I was fortunate enough to study economics at university—obviously I understand all these issues—but a lot of people aged 16 to 18 will not have had that benefit. The issues are difficult. I support the move in general, but I am concerned that the turnout will be low, so I wonder what the Government will do about that.
Chris Ruane
I welcome the Government’s proposals to give 16 to 18-year-olds a vote in a referendum on income tax raising powers. I would also like those young people to have a general right to vote in all elections —general elections, Assembly elections, local elections and other referendums.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), however, as the move needs to be accompanied by civic education. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has a degree in economics, but even the great Member himself does not quite understand everything about the subject.
Chris Ruane
That is as may be.
It is incumbent on us and the National Assembly for Wales to make sure that, if young people aged 16, 17 or 18 are to have the right to vote in the referendum, they have the relevant education, background and knowledge.
Chris Ruane
I agree entirely, but that should not be left to a short campaign two or three weeks before a referendum; it should be as of right.
I was a teacher for 15 years, admittedly in a primary school rather than a secondary one. We should try to teach these issues at a level that young people will understand. By the age of 18, someone has the right to have a mortgage. We need to make sure that young people are educated, in ways they understand, about mortgage rates, interest rates and student loans.
Stephen Crabb
I know that the hon. Gentleman is in no way belittling primary school children, but I should say that I have faced some of my most challenging questions when visiting primary schools, not least about the Chartist movement when I visited a Newport primary school.
Chris Ruane
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I used to delegate the collection of the orange squash money to the brightest child in the class, whose money-counting skills were greater than mine.
We need to educate young people, especially about student loans and VAT, so that when they put their X in the box, they are making an informed decision. They need to know the crucial difference between progressive and regressive taxes.
Mr Mark Williams
Like the hon. Gentleman, I used to teach primary school children. He will be aware of the sense of injustice that primary school children and older children will feel. The biggest injustice does not relate to not being educated on these matters, but to being denied a vote in one election and then allowed a vote in another. Yes, we welcome what the Government have done—I pay tribute to Lord Tyler and Lord Thomas of Gresford in the other place who pushed the issue forward—but is not the biggest injustice the inconsistency between different elections?
Chris Ruane
I agree entirely. I would prefer it if young people were able to vote in all elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said that he was wary of Tories bringing gifts, but I welcome this gift from them to 16 and 17-year-olds, especially as such gifts do not usually come from their party.
The move represents a foot in the door for opening up voting rights to 16 to 18-year-olds in other elections. The small precedent of voting in one referendum has been set. A path has been paved ready, I hope, for when Labour gets in in May, and we can point to this as a precedent and say, “If it’s been done for a referendum, it can be done for all other votes.”
We need to look particularly carefully at the registration of 16 to 18-year-olds, as that will have to start quite early on. Using the precedent that 18-year-olds can be registered to vote at the age of 16, perhaps these young people should be registered at the age of 14. As I said earlier, a golden opportunity comes when a young person’s national insurance number is issued at the age of 15 and three quarters. I have raised this point in parliamentary questions. Currently a young person can be registered at 16. Could not that be taken back three months to 15 and three quarters, when their national insurance number is issued? With the introduction of individual electoral registration, a person’s national insurance number is required when they fill in the registration form. Why not arrange to have that form filled in on the day when the elector gets their national insurance number? That would make eminent sense, and it would also get over the fact that only 55% of 18-year-olds are registered, as I said earlier, and only 44% of them vote. Only 25% of young people take part in the democratic process.
That has consequences for young people as individuals and for the whole of society. Let me give a practical example. One of the first steps the coalition Government took was to increase student loans from £3,000 a year to £9,000 a year, so, for an average student, the total rose from £9,000 to £27,000. Would they have taken such measures against pensioners, whose registration rates are 96% and whose voting rates are 86%? The fact that young people are not registered and voting means that political parties—all political parties—will bear that in mind when they are drawing up their policies. It is important that we have maximum registration from the outset for 16-year-olds who will have the right to vote.
Chris Ruane
My hon. Friend is taking issue with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a place for such terminology in some debates, but perhaps not those with 16-year-olds.
The issue of civics should go beyond finance and how we organise our economy. The finances of a country can impinge on wider issues such as racism, sexism and consumerism. There are threats from parties out there that are against the fabric of our British society. They want to promote the issue of race. It is fine if they want to discuss that, but it has to be done with intelligence, not bigotry.
The introduction of voting rights for young people at the age of 16 for the income tax raising powers referendum is a good idea. We should be very wary of what the Electoral Commission has done—or has not done—in the past if we are to make sure that these young people are registered. The Electoral Commission should be contacting electoral registration officers in the 22 authorities in Wales to make sure that they know how to register these young people. It should be regularly monitoring best practice from around the UK—indeed, around the world—and relaying that information to the Welsh Government in Cardiff to make sure that best practice is pursued in Wales for the purposes of registration for the referendum.
Best practice in registering young people exists in Northern Ireland. The EROs in Northern Ireland are proactive in going out to schools to register young people. We should be doing that, but the Electoral Commission has refused to replicate in the rest of the UK what is now done in Northern Ireland.
The Electoral Commission has failed to ensure that electoral registration officers obey the law. Statutorily, they must knock on the door of non-responders. If a 16-year-old was not registered to vote for the referendum, for example, the local ERO would have to go round, knock on the door and register that 16-year-old. Even though that requirement has been set out in law for many years, there has not been a single prosecution of an ERO who has broken the law. One ERO in Devon has broken the law by not conducting a door-to-door canvass for five years on the trot, but the Electoral Commission has done nothing about it.
We should make sure that the Electoral Commission warns EROs in Wales about that. We do have best practice in Wales. My own electoral registration officer, Gareth Evans, is one of best performing EROs in the whole country, but not all officers are as good as him, and we need to make sure that they all perform at the standards of the best so that young people are registered.
The Electoral Commission has failed miserably to use the most effective and efficient third-party organisations, such as Bite the Ballot, to get young people on to the electoral register. Bite the Ballot can register young people for as little as 25p per registration, but when one compares the cost of the Electoral Commission’s advertising campaign with the number of registration forms downloaded from the internet, it spent £80 per registration in 2005. The commission should therefore work with EROs in Wales, as well as with Bite the Ballot, to encourage them to ensure that 16-year-olds are registered from the outset.
This is a great opportunity, and I congratulate both elements of the coalition, especially the Conservatives. It is not in their nature to extend the vote. They are rightly fearful of young people, which is perhaps why they are not talking much about the lack of registration at national level. Registration rates in some wards in student areas of big university cities such as Manchester and Liverpool are as low as 20% following the move over to IER. I congratulate everyone, including my Front-Bench colleagues, and I hope that we will learn from this opportunity and go on to extend to 16 to 18-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) for the positive way in which he has ended this debate. He contributed to it by highlighting the need for young people to be educated about the process, and the need for us to engage with the activities of electoral registration officers, which were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams).
The Lords amendments are intended to be positive. They will extend the powers of the Assembly. They provide greater powers than those in the original Bill, and this is the first time that we have had the opportunity to discuss them. At some stages of the debate, I felt that although all parties are in favour of those powers, they were being welcomed almost through gritted teeth. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd for finishing on a positive note.
Some hon. Members said that they have campaigned for votes at 16 for a very long time, but if there was such support, the extension of the vote could have been done during the 13 years of the previous Labour Administration. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) pointed out that he tabled amendments at the time and they were certainly not accepted by Labour. However, I want to be positive.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
It is a shame that the Minister is speaking on a sour note. May I ask him to bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made about encouraging electoral registration officers and others to register young people at age 15, when they get their national insurance number? That seems a good idea, so will the Minister contact his colleagues in the Cabinet Office to encourage it? It would be administratively neat and I suspect that, as my hon. Friend suggested, it would help boost voter registration among young people, which has to be a good thing. We should have this debate in that positive way rather than go in a sour direction, as the Minister has done.
Alun Cairns
I do not intend to be sour in any way, shape or form. I want to be positive, because the Bill will extend the powers of the Assembly and is welcomed by all parties. It is important that it is recognised in that way, rather than in the churlish way in which it has been welcomed in some quarters. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point positively, and the Cabinet Office will have heard his suggestion and the contributions of other Members, including the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd. Those points go well beyond the scope of the Lords amendments, but they have been well made and received in a positive way, which is how the debate should finish.
The Bill has passed through both Houses, and we all need to recognise that it represents a major shift in powers and that there is a great opportunity for Wales, the Assembly and the Welsh Government if they use those powers productively and enthusiastically. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for how he has handled the Bill since taking office, but also to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), for his contribution in steering the Bill through the House, and to Baroness Randerson for her activities in the other place. I also pay tribute to the officials and everyone else who has worked on the Bill, particularly in the Wales Office. I hope that the House will support the Lords amendments.
Lords amendment 14 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.
Lords amendments 15 and 16 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.