The Economy
Debate between Albert Owen and Geraint Davies(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Debate between Albert Owen and Geraint Davies
Geraint Davies
I will resist responding to the comment about barking.
On the ISDS, we know that big companies use the powers available to them to sue democratically elected Governments. For example, the Lone Pine fracking company is suing the Canadian Government for hundreds of millions of dollars because Quebec brought out a moratorium on fracking. In a well-known case, Philip Morris is suing Uruguay and Australia over tobacco packaging. The Dutch insurance company, Achmea, is suing the Slovakians for trying to reverse health privatisation. If those powers are available, corporations will use them to maximise profit. Why should they not? That is what they are there to do. I am not saying that they are immoral, because that is what they do and that is what we expect. Our job is to regulate to ensure that the public interest is put first.
There is also an issue of sovereignty. The comprehensive economic and trade agreement will last for 20 years; some people are worried about the EU, but future Governments would be bound by these rules for 20 years. I think that is wrong, and a lot of Conservative Members have raised that point with me.
Albert Owen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise that he is getting a little frustrated with the amount of interventions, but mine is brief and specific to the motion. He talks about the scrutiny of this House. Will he explain what method of scrutiny would be used? Would scrutiny be done by a Committee, or would a Minister come to the Dispatch Box, so that the whole House could provide scrutiny?
Geraint Davies
The issue is already being scrutinised by the European Scrutiny Committee, and the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is also interested in it, and the provision will clearly have a widespread impact, so it should be brought before the House. I would like recommendations to be made by this House in an advisory way to the European Parliament, so that it can table amendments. At the moment, everything is being decided by negotiators behind closed doors. That is completely unacceptable, and it will just be a yes/no decision with ratification. CETA was agreed in September 2014, and it sounds as if it is having some sort of legal washing. It will be brought before Members of the European Parliament next spring.
I want to mention regulatory chill because of the pressure and threat of that sort of action. Already, the EU has withdrawn its demands for transparency and clinical data in trials. That means that if a big drugs company does 10 trials and three go wrong—thalidomide, for example—and seven go right, it only has to publish details of the seven that go right. That is worrying, as are the bits and pieces about trade secrets, which clearly undermine and inhibit democracy. There are issues of rights at work, and the problem of CETA being agreed, because that is a Trojan horse that allows all the powers created in the investor-state dispute settlement to come in through the back door and bite our democracy, public services and public finances.
Wales Bill
Debate between Albert Owen and Geraint Davies(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geraint Davies
It is a new constitutional phenomenon that I have just introduced. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will delight in it, being a person who indulges in that sort of thing.
If I may reference Scotland for a moment, rational and emotional powers are at play. There are people who thought that Scottish independence was going to go down the tube because of currency, the EU and inward investment, but now, of course, the wind is blowing in a different direction. The people of Scotland feel that they are being told that they cannot live without us and there are the emotions of divorce, so there is a mixture of rational economic argument and emotion. The feeling in Wales is that, rather than facing years and years of Tory austerity, we want to decide our own thing. The reality is that if Scotland leaves the UK we will end up with more Conservative Governments, because of the residual demography, and that will change the appetite for devolution.
Plaid Cymru would obviously like Wales to go down the road of independence and it sees this as a stepping stone. It talks about fair deals and fair funding for Wales even in the knowledge—this is an important point on what is behind the Tory agenda, too—that the difference between taxes raised versus expenditure in Wales is about £15 billion. The Conservative plot is to reduce the number of Welsh MPs, give borrowing and tax raising powers to Wales and forget about giving Wales its fair share of both revenue and capital. In the case of Scotland, the difference, coincidently, is also about £15 billion, but it currently makes up that difference in oil.
We therefore have a situation where it is convenient for everybody to go along this path, but the people of Wales want fair funding now. What that means in relation to the Barnett formula, as has been mentioned, is an extra £300 million a year. Wales should have the same needs-based formula as the English regions. It is not difficult to work that out, so that should just move forward.
With regard to capital, like other parts of Britain outside London and the south-east, Wales gets a small fraction of the investment per head that London gets—London gets about £5,000 per head and Wales gets about £500 per head. That is a problem for everyone outside London. If we migrated some of that investment outside London, we could put pressure on the system to make it more balanced. Britain is quite unusual in that respect. In Germany, for example, Berlin does not dominate Munich or Dusseldorf, so there is no necessity for that balancing.
If the response in Wales is, “Well, we are not getting enough money to do our own thing, so we will have to borrow it,” who will pay for that borrowing? That is the real fear, because there is no money on the table for that. Then there is the false analysis that the borrowing needs to be hypothecated against an income stream from income tax or other taxes, and that the amount of borrowing should be determined by the size of those streams. Frankly, that is just false. It is not the case that in order to justify more borrowing we need more income tax devolution. It is the case that the amount of money Wales will get in future, as the Secretary of State argues, will be broadly the same; it will not be distorted by this method.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and I fear that we will end up with less money over time because the tax take per penny of income tax is 70% of what it is in England. If we assume for a moment that the global amount of money remains the same, then where does the extra money for paying back the borrowing come from? Well, it comes from nowhere. The reality is that the money would be paid back by top-slicing revenue, which means top-slicing the amount of money for services. That is what will happen if Wales does not get its fair share of UK funding.
We have already seen the signs and symptoms of the stealthy stranglehold that the Tories want to put on Wales, with the recent U-turns on the valleys lines. All of a sudden we hear, “Here you are. You can borrow some money.” A moment ago there was going to be electrification from Paddington to Cardiff and then through to Swansea, including the valleys, but all of a sudden we are told, “Well, the small print states that the Welsh Assembly has to do that, and it can do that by borrowing.” In fact, the commitment to go through to Swansea is not even fulfilled. The Government said that they would electrify the line from Paddington to Cardiff and then from Bridgend to Swansea, but they will not do the bit in the middle. If the Welsh Assembly Government say that they will not do that because they have another priority, which they might have, as is their right, we will have a bit in the middle that is not electrified, and that is not electrification through to Swansea, so the Government have broken their word.
Albert Owen
I am a little confused by my hon. Friend’s terminology, because he talks about small print. I do not see any small print. The Prime Minister made a statement to the BBC in which he said that he would pay for electrification to Swansea and the valleys. That was in his statement, not in any small print.
Geraint Davies
Perhaps I have been misinterpreted. There was no small print. There was a big announcement, as my hon. Friend has just said, by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and others. The small print I was referring to was the weasel words in the long-winded document that was exchanged between Ministers, which presumably changed the headline proposition. It had been, “We will provide this,” and then the Minister argued, “When we went through it all I found here on page 23 that it says that actually it is interpreted in this way, so according to our lawyers the Welsh Government will have to do that.” That is not what we heard on the radio.