Wales Bill
Debate between Jonathan Edwards and David Jones(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Jones
I shall speak briefly in support of amendments 158 to 160 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies). He has dealt very well with the thrust of the amendments and I do not wish to repeat what he has said. However, I would like to focus on proposed new subsection (4D) which provides:
“The Secretary of State may give a direction to Welsh Ministers that applications for consent for the construction or extension of stations generating electricity from wind which would have a capacity less than 51 megawatts must be determined by local planning authorities and must not be called in or determined by Welsh Ministers.”
As I mentioned on Second Reading, there have been unintended consequences of the Energy Act 2016, which is a development of UK Government policy that provides that all applications for onshore wind generating stations should no longer be governed by the Planning Act 2008, but should instead be determined by local planning authorities. This applies also in Wales, but as a consequence of Welsh legislation, the Welsh Government have designated all wind farm developments in Wales as so-called developments of national significance, which fall to be considered by the Welsh Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is right to insert this provision. We both come from parts of Wales where the development of wind farms has caused huge problems. They have been disproportionately scattered across rural Wales and there are large areas that almost literally have a turbine on every hillside. Local communities certainly want these applications to be determined at local level, and it is entirely right that the Welsh Government, having taken it upon themselves to adopt this power, should now have it taken away from them. The power should be returned to local authorities.
As I have suggested, this has been an example of the law of unintended consequences. I am absolutely sure that the Government did not expect that, as a consequence of the Energy Act 2016, all such applications would fall to be determined by the Welsh Government. That is what has happened, however, and local communities have been disfranchised. This proposal is therefore a sensible one, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give consideration to it. If he cannot accept it this evening, will he take it away and come back with another proposal on Report to address the concerns that I have outlined?
Jonathan Edwards
I rise to speak to new clauses 4, 5, 8 and 9. I also refer Members to my speech on new clauses 2 and 3 and income tax during our first day in Committee last week.
New clause 5 would devolve air passenger duty to Wales. In 2012, the Silk commission recommended the devolution of a block of financial powers, including air passenger duty, to the National Assembly. That was a carefully crafted package of measures. Those minor taxes were clearly listed as pressing, and the commission recommended that they be devolved in the next possible legislative vehicle, which happened to be the 2013 Finance Bill. For whatever reason, however, APD was missing from that Bill and a Plaid Cymru amendment that would have included it was defeated.
On the publication of its recommendations, the commission had cross-party and governmental support. However, four years on, I am disappointed that the Government have turned their back on the commission and its recommendations. They are instead simply cherry-picking the amendments that will be the least disruptive to the current devolution arrangement for Wales. In that period, we have had a Northern Ireland Act and two Scotland Acts through which APD was devolved to those countries and, needless to say, Labour and Tory MPs based in Wales supported those Acts. Wales is, once again, getting the short end of the stick when it comes to devolved taxation.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) is not in the Chamber. Although she is apparently oblivious to her party’s inability to support the devolution of APD twice in the previous Parliament, she has rightly stated:
“Air passenger duty has already been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and…to the Scottish Parliament, but despite this, the Budget did not propose that it be devolved to the Welsh Assembly.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 521.]
She asked for it to be devolved, and that is an unimpeachable argument—I agree with every word she said.
Mr David Jones
Has the hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the impact that his proposals might have on north Wales’s local airports in Liverpool and Manchester?
Jonathan Edwards
The whole point of devolving APD to Wales is to allow Welsh Ministers to set their own priorities for the aviation industry in Wales. At the end of the day, it will be up to Welsh Ministers to consider the most appropriate APD policy for Wales to maximise revenues from their own public asset. Let us remember that Cardiff airport is owned by the people of Wales. Clearly, increasing footfall at the airport could generate substantial revenues elsewhere, primarily by boosting economic performance across the whole of the economy, especially in the Secretary of State’s own Vale of Glamorgan constituency.
I am not privy to the Cardiff airport’s strategic planning, but my understanding is that the element of APD that the airport is most interested in is long-haul taxation. As I mentioned, the airport has a superb runway that can accommodate transatlantic flights, which Bristol airport cannot. If Cardiff were to develop that angle of its business, that could surely be of use to Bristol airport, if transport links between both airports could be improved. There lies a challenge for the Welsh Government, because our international airport urgently needs public transport upgrades to get people from Cardiff—and indeed Swansea—to and from the airport. The current infrastructure is awful, compared with that of Belfast, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Recent public opinion polls suggest that 78% of Welsh voters agree that APD should be devolved. That does not quite compare with the percentage who support the introduction of Welsh bank notes, but that incredibly high number is still a clear indication of public opinion. It takes a brave politician to ignore opinion poll figures of those proportions.
Furthermore, the National Assembly should have more responsibility for the money it spends. The Secretary of State for Wales himself has said that increasing its taxation responsibilities makes the Assembly “truly accountable” to the people of Wales, so why not include air passenger duty in the list of devolved taxes? Why continue to limit the financial responsibilities of the Welsh Government? Jane Hutt, the former Minister for Finance and Government Business in the Welsh Government, who I am not in the habit of quoting, has said:
“It is…disappointing that the UK Government has decided to continue its procrastination over the devolution of Air Passenger Duty. This discriminatory approach is unacceptable and unjustifiable”.
We have seen during the progress of the Bill that what the Labour Government say in Wales does not necessarily translate into voting behaviour where it counts down here in Westminster. Official Opposition Members might be relieved to hear that I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division, but I will return to the matter on Report. I hope that, in the meantime, the Secretary of State will listen to one of the most important strategic players in his constituency and his country, and I look forward to him bringing forward Government amendments to devolve APD before the Bill completes its progress through the House.
I now turn my attention to new clause 4, which would equalise the situation between Wales and Scotland when it comes to VAT revenues. The Scotland Act 2016 stated that revenues from the first 10 percentage points of the standard VAT rate would be devolved by the 2019-20 financial year. The current UK VAT rate is 20% and half of all the VAT raised in Scotland will be kept in Scotland. It is important to note that the Scottish Government will have no ability to change VAT rates.
Sales taxes in the United States are state taxes, not federal taxes, so different states have different levels of their version of VAT. We propose equalising the situation with Scotland because although EU rules prohibit different sales tax levels within the boundaries of a member state, adopting the Scottish model could pave the way, in a post-Brexit scenario, to devolving VAT in its entirety to Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. In a post-Brexit UK, it seems clear that significant political and fiscal power will have to be conceded by Westminster unless the post-Brexit vision is an even more lopsided state in which power and wealth are even more concentrated in London and the south-east.
The Scottish model has some incentivising benefits as it would help to galvanise the Welsh Government to boost the spending power of our citizens by basing a job creation strategy around well-paid jobs and seriously getting to grips with our low-wage economy. As page 4 of Cardiff University’s excellent “Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales 2016” report states:
“VAT was the largest source of revenue in Wales (raising £5.2 billion), followed by Income Tax (£4.6 billion) and National Insurance Contributions (£4.0 billion). The composition of revenues in Wales is markedly different from the UK as a whole. Large direct taxes…make up less of a share of total Welsh revenue, while a greater share is raised through indirect taxes”.
The report’s point is that indirect taxes such as VAT generate more revenue in Wales than direct taxes such as income tax. The report also indicates that Welsh tax revenues have grown by 12.3% since 2011, the main component of which was VAT revenues.
As long as we have a Tory UK Government, economic growth will continue to be based around consumer spending. If that is the case, it is all the more important that the people of Wales directly benefit from that growth and from their own spending power. Denying Wales the same powers as Scotland on VAT seems to be a deliberate attempt to undermine revenues for the Welsh Government.
New clause 4 is probing, so I will not be pressing it to a vote at this stage, but I look forward to hearing the UK Government’s justification for why they have not given Wales the same status as Scotland, especially considering the good performance of Wales—for whatever reason—in generating VAT revenues. I may return to this matter during the Bill’s later stages.
Similarly probing are new clauses 8 and 9, which would devolve corporation tax to mirror the situation in Northern Ireland. As a proud Welshman, I want my country to succeed. I desperately want our GDP to increase and to close the gap between the GDPs of Wales and the UK. If that is to happen, we unquestionably have to make Wales a more attractive place to do business. I want to make Wales the most attractive place in the UK to do business, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales would want the same for his country.
Most other countries are able to set their own rates of corporation tax. It is a lever with which a national Government can influence their country’s desirability to potential investors, but Wales is restricted from doing so. We are forced to compete with the other UK nations with our hands tied behind our backs. Northern Ireland has a huge competitive advantage over Wales, and we know about the rate in the Republic of Ireland, with which we share a sea border. We cannot build a High Speed 2 for Wales. We cannot electrify our railways and we cannot offer tax incentives. We are constantly forced to come to Westminster with a begging bowl. We are still waiting for even an inch of electrified railway. We are still not getting full Barnett consequentials from HS2, let alone getting our own high-speed rail, and we are once again being told that we cannot use corporation tax as a way of attracting business.
Wales Bill
Debate between Jonathan Edwards and David Jones(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing the Bill. I have to say, however, that that should not be interpreted as meaning that I greet it with unalloyed enthusiasm. This is the fourth major piece of constitutional legislation aimed at conferring devolved powers on Wales in less than 20 years. The very fact that we are in the Chamber to debate this yet again shows just how flawed the original devolution settlement was and how important it is that, on this occasion, we try to get it right at the fourth time of asking.
The Secretary of State has very kindly presented a briefing note on the Wales Bill, in which he acknowledges that
“there is more work to do”,
and that there are “unresolved issues” and “unfinished business”. He goes on to say that he is looking to
“amend the Bill if necessary during its parliamentary passage.”
I must say that he is probably not likely to be disappointed in that regard.
The opening clauses of the Bill follow the current fashion for declaratory legislation. We are solemnly told that the
“Assembly and the Welsh Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.”
We are also told that they are
“not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales voting in”—
yet another—
“referendum.”
We are told that there is a “body of Welsh law”, which should not of course be in any way confused with a Welsh jurisdiction. There is a declaration that in effect incorporates the Sewel convention into statute, in that the Bill declares that this Parliament
“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly.”
Such declarations are all well and good, but they are in danger of overlooking the constitutional fact that this Parliament is supreme, which makes one wonder about their worth and whether they are in reality mere window dressing.
It is somewhat ironic that, having quite rightly abandoned the necessity test, the Government are now apparently introducing a normality test. As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, that means that the courts might intrude on parliamentary sovereignty by deciding or being asked to decide whether a piece of legislation passed by this Parliament is, so to speak, normal.
The Bill does of course change the devolution settlement from a conferred powers model to a reserved powers model, which is deemed to make matters clearer. I have to say that I do not believe that a reserved powers model is, as many contend, a panacea. The reserved powers model is in reality simply a mirror image of the conferred powers model. The nature of the model is less important than the clarity of language, as other Members have pointed out.
That is particularly important in relation to whether the reservations are comprehensive. The danger is that if the reservations are not comprehensive, there will be problems. I am glad, for example, that my right hon. Friend has not emulated a former Secretary of State for Scotland, who made sure that Antarctica was a reserved matter, and that we will not therefore see an attempt to create a new Patagonia on that continent.
The necessity test has been abandoned to the extent that it is no longer the case that the Assembly can modify criminal and private law only where modification
“has no greater effect otherwise than…is necessary to give effect to the…provision.”
That was a positive invitation to go to the Supreme Court. However, there is still a necessity test in relation to the law on reserved matters. Proposed new section 108A(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 will provide that Assembly Acts cannot modify the law on reserved matters unless ancillary to a provision that is not reserved, but modification cannot go further than is necessary to achieve the devolved objective. Words such as “necessary” and “normally” lack objectivity, and are therefore subject to interpretation, including, in difficult cases, by the Supreme Court. I do not believe, therefore, that simply changing the model of devolution will necessarily achieve the clarity that everyone wants. In Committee, I believe it will be necessary to test whether the reservations are truly comprehensive to avoid any further difficulties of the sort we have already experienced. To be fair, however, the Secretary of State has acknowledged that the Bill is a work in progress, and he will no doubt be expecting such tests and, if necessary, significant amendments in Committee.
I do not want to dwell too lengthily on individual provisions, but some matters are worth mentioning. First, as the Secretary of State will have anticipated from my interventions, I have a huge concern about the proposal that income tax varying powers in the 2014 Act should now be triggered without a referendum. As a Conservative, I have a particular concern, because at the last general election—despite the apparently rapid passage of time, I remind him that it was only just over a year ago—I and Conservative colleagues campaigned on the basis that the powers would not be triggered without a referendum. Indeed, when I was specifically asked on the doorstep whether the powers would be imposed on the Assembly without consent, I made it absolutely clear that a referendum was contemplated. I must say that it is positively disrespectful of the people of Wales for this Parliament to seek to impose new tax-raising competences without consulting them first.
That was done in the case of Scotland, and despite the interventions already made by Opposition Members, it is perfectly possible to formulate such a question and, in the case of Scotland, one that could be answered in the affirmative. If the Scots are entitled to that, surely the people of Wales should be entitled to the same level of respect. I invite the Secretary of State to think about that, and to consider whether, in the circumstances, the Bill should be amended by the deletion of clause 16.
Secondly, although this may appear to be a minor point, I find it difficult to understand the rationale for devolving to the Assembly the setting of speed limits. Wales and England have a continuous, porous border, and every day there are many thousands of journeys back and forth across the border. It does not bear scrutiny that there should potentially be different speed limits on either side of that border—it makes no sense. I cannot understand what possible reason there could be for devolving the setting of speed limits. What mischief is it aimed at? Who asked for it? Why is it necessary?
Thirdly, there is the issue of electricity generating consents, set out in clause 36. I intervened on the Secretary of State about that. The 350 MW limit provided for in the Bill seems to have little practical significance, because wind generating stations are expressly excluded. The granting of energy generation consents for capacities of more than 350 MW will remain with the Secretary of State, and there are few conventional power stations with an output of less than 350 MW.
The worrying fact is that although the Bill is silent on the subject, it devolves competence to the Assembly for all onshore wind farms, with no upper limit at all. I refer the Secretary of State to the excellent Library note, which points out that the Energy Act 2016 has transferred competence for wind farm consents to local planning authorities. A piece of Welsh legislation with which I have no doubt we are all familiar, the Developments of National Significance (Specified Criteria and Prescribed Secondary Consents) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, provides that all wind farm developments in Wales are designated as developments of national significance. According to the Library note, which I have no reason to doubt, that means that all such developments, whether of up to 50 MW or more than 50 MW, will be determined by procedures set by the Assembly.
Given the thrust of policy at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, I suggest that the consequence of that will be a rush to develop wind farms in Wales. Indeed, I suggest that there may be a free-for-all. Areas such as my constituency, Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnor, which already have a lot of wind farms, are likely to be under further pressure for wind farm developments.
Jonathan Edwards
I hesitate to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of scaremongering, but the pace of development of renewable technologies relies on the subsidy that is available, which is determined by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Jonathan Edwards
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I have two TAN 8—technical advice note 8—areas in my constituency, and in one of them the only developments that have occurred have been determined by Westminster. The local planning authority, which is responsible for developments of below 50 MW, has turned them down.
Mr Jones
That may be the case, but I say with huge respect that I think the hon. Gentleman is missing the point, which is about competence. It seemed clear from the Secretary of State’s response to my intervention that what I said was news to him. It was based on the Library note, which I believe is accurate. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter, and he may well wish to table amendments himself in Committee.
The Bill is a further step in the process of devolution, and I believe that it is a brave attempt to rectify the errors of the past. However, I strongly question whether, in its current form, it will do the job that it is intended to. As I said, the Secretary of State anticipated amendments in his briefing note, and I have no doubt that he will look forward to them with great anticipation.
Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)
Debate between Jonathan Edwards and David Jones(8 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Jones
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. May I commence by congratulating the hon. Member for Llanelli on calling for this Welsh Grand Committee today? I have often felt that this Committee contributes more than is frequently recognised to the political life of Wales, and I am glad that we are sitting here again. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd on an excellent contribution to the debate.
This forum is important for Welsh MPs. I am pleased that we have the opportunity today to discuss the draft Wales Bill, which is the latest in an increasingly long line of measures put forward by successive Secretaries of State to address devolution in Wales. Our principal problem is that the devolution settlement as originally implemented was grossly defective. It was put in place in a hurry by the Blair Administration, and successive Governments since have had to make attempts to repair the damage done to the constitution of the United Kingdom as a consequence.
Like the Secretary of State, I started my journey as an avowed devo-sceptic. I have since become, as has Lord Murphy of Torfaen, a devo-realist, because it is clear that devolution will be a feature of the constitution of this country, at least for the foreseeable future. I congratulate the Secretary of State on attempting to put right what is in my view a defective settlement. However, I have huge concerns about this draft Bill, which I shall touch on later. Many have called for a move from a conferred powers model of devolution to a reserved powers model. The view that I have always taken, as has my right hon. Friend, is that simply to do that is not a panacea. We can have the same issues, but in mirror image, so to speak.
The proposed reserved powers model addresses some issues of concern, most importantly those of the silent subjects, which proved so problematic in the Agricultural Wages Board case. However, it is perfectly clear from today’s contributions in this Chamber and externally from experienced commentators that what is now proposed does not go far enough.
I do not want to deal with the specific provisions of the Bill at great length. However, I applaud my right hon. Friend for the reservation of policing from the devolution settlement. Policing is one of the three great public services. From a pragmatic point of view, it is perfectly clear that the Assembly has not so far proved successful in their stewardship of either health or education. I believe to confer competence for policing would be a step too far.
Jonathan Edwards
Is it the right hon. Gentleman’s position that policing should be re-reserved in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Mr Jones
I believe that is correct in the case of Wales. England and Wales, as we have heard at length today, is a conjoined jurisdiction. It makes far more sense for such an important public service as policing to be reserved. Furthermore, from a pragmatic point of view, let me say quite bluntly that I do not believe the Welsh Government would be able to handle policing. I think it would be beyond them.
I also have concerns about the proposed devolution of competence for harbours. Harbours are an important part of our economy. Again, I have concerns about the capacity of the Assembly to deal with them. On what may appear to be a minor matter, I think that the proposal to devolve competence for speed limits is, quite frankly, potty.
The problem with the draft Bill is not what is devolved and what is reserved. Those are matters for discussion, negotiation and rethought. The principal problems lie in schedule 2. This has been the subject of much discussion this morning. The core of the problem lies in the use of the word “necessary”. To decide the limits of devolution by an interpretation of the word “necessary” is a positive invitation for many more references to the Supreme Court.
It should be possible to arrive at a terminology. I had hoped that, when I intervened on the Shadow Secretary of State, she might have given thought to this matter and have a formulation herself, but it would appear not. Nevertheless, I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that considerable further thought needs to be given to the use of the word “necessary”. Otherwise, we will see many more cases referred to the Supreme Court, which is the last thing that anyone in this Chamber wants.
On the expression “reserved authority”, I see the need to refer to it. Increasingly, legislation emanating from the Assembly has imposed greater and greater burdens on non-devolved authorities and Ministries of State. It is quite right that those burdens should not be imposed and I believe, therefore, that they should be constrained. The expression “leeway and lock” has been used by the Wales governance centre in its recent paper. “Leeway and lock” sounds like the opening words of the 1951 test match. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to define the area of competence wherein the Assembly operates and it is absolutely right that it should not be passing legislation that has unforeseen consequences on the reserved authorities referred to in the draft Bill.
It is right that, before any such burdens are imposed, the consent of the relevant Minister should be sought. It is, after all, the flipside of the provision that provides that where the Assembly’s competence is being invaded, the legislative consent motion should be sought. This can also be addressed by making provisions for a timescale within which consent can be given, or, as I think the Wales governance centre suggested, by a presumption in favour of a consent, unless consent is withheld within a certain time.