Alun Cairns
Main Page: Alun Cairns (Conservative - Vale of Glamorgan)Department Debates - View all Alun Cairns's debates with the Wales Office
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Susan Elan Jones
One could talk about a lot of aspects in the Bill, as we know, because at one time or another most of us have done so. I will therefore concentrate on one particular amendment: amendment 123, which has been signed by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and others, which concerns the devolution of licensing of the provision of entertainment and late-night refreshments, and the sale and supply of alcohol.
My hon. Friend is a great scholar of Welsh history, so I am surprised that he did not mention that the first Wales-only legislation came with the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881. That means that there is real sense of history behind this amendment. Most of us would agree that it makes perfect sense to devolve such provisions to the Assembly’s legislative competence so I, for one, strongly support the amendment. We must recognise that there needs to be a greater debate about this whole subject, because alcohol abuse has relevance to health services as well as local government services. We are not living in the days of the 1881 Act, following which areas voted on whether to be wet or dry. People from dry areas would often travel a little further along the lanes to get to a wet area. However, we are now dealing with problems of alcohol abuse and of pre-loading in many of our communities. Years ago, the mudiad dirwest—the Welsh temperance movement—would often decry other cultures and say, “Fancy the French—they give wine to their children!” In reality, alcohol and food have always gone together naturally in many continental cultures, but that is not the case with pre-loading. We need to think about that very seriously indeed.
We also need to consider our rural areas. I am sure that all of us take very seriously issues relating to drink or drug-driving. Those of us who represent rural and semi-rural areas will know from talking to our constituents and others that some people still take chances on country roads and drive when they are above the legal limit. I appreciate that the culture has changed for the better in many ways and that fewer people do that, but it is still a problem in many of our rural communities. Frankly, if someone in a car finds themselves on a narrow single lane faced by a drink-driver, their chances of survival are fairly low.
Devolving the relevant powers would affect how we consider health, social care and local government provision. Great problems are connected to alcohol and drug abuse. I do not wish to sound like a member of the Committee that considered the 1881 Act, because I think that many of us welcome wine, real ale and the conviviality provided by food and drink, but we do not welcome alcohol or drug abuse. We would, however, welcome sensible devolved provisions to make tackling those problems easier.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Hoyle, and to respond to Members’ comments about the amendments. I echo what was said about the Welsh football team. The Prime Minister has already congratulated them, and it is a pleasure for me to do so as Secretary of State for Wales.
The amendments go to the heart of the new devolution settlement for Wales that the Bill puts in place. Clause 3 and schedules 1 and 2 insert new section 108A and new schedules 7A and 7B into the Government of Wales Act 2006 to provide for a reserved powers model of Welsh devolution. The Bill devolves significant new powers and will enable the Welsh Government and Assembly Members to legislate on the things that really matter to Wales.
Clause 3 sets out the parameters of the legislative competence of the Assembly under the reserved powers model. An Act of the Assembly will be outside competence—it therefore will not be law—if it falls foul of any one of the five tests set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of new section 108A(2). I will first say something about how it is intended that each of those tests will work before turning to the proposed amendments to the clause.
The five tests are separate and independent assessments, each of which must be satisfied for a provision to be within competence. The first test is that an Assembly Act provision cannot form part of a legal jurisdiction other than that of England and Wales. We debated many aspects of that during our first day in Committee.
Test 2 is that an Assembly Act provision cannot apply
“otherwise than in relation to Wales”.
There is an exception to that prohibition, however, because new section 108A(3) states that an Assembly Act provision can apply beyond Wales, but only when it is ancillary to a provision that is within competence and if there is no greater effect beyond Wales than is necessary to give effect to that provision. It is worth noting that we have used the word “ancillary” as shorthand for the Assembly’s existing enforcement and consequential-type powers under section 108(5) of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Liz Saville Roberts
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has listed a number of tests, but does he agree that, for them to be justifications in a reserved power model, we should see how the reservations apply to each area?
Alun Cairns
I will cover those points, but I have sought to underline the importance of the tests because they are so fundamental to the reserved powers model. Of course, the reservations will be equally fundamental. The hon. Lady mentioned a significant number of them. As I make progress, I will cover many of the points she made and invite her to intervene then.
Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by the main Opposition party, and Plaid Cymru’s amendments 148 and 149 seek to broaden the Assembly’s competence significantly by enabling it to legislate in relation to reserved matters so long as the provision is ancillary to a provision on a devolved matter. These amendments would drive a coach and horses through the key principle underpinning the new model, which is a clear boundary between what is devolved and what is reserved. They would give the Assembly the power to make unfettered changes to reserved matters such as the justice system, which we debated in detail last week, provided only that some connection to a devolved provision was established. What is more, they are simply not needed. We want to ensure that the Assembly can enforce its legislation and make it effective. We provide for this in paragraphs 1 and 2 of new schedule 7B by enabling the Assembly to modify the law on reserved matters. This is suitable to ensure that the Assembly’s devolved provisions can be enforced without compromising the principle of reserved matters.
I turn now to the proposed new schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act, which sets out the reserved matters, referred to in general in the legislation as the “reservations”. These matters must be seen through the prism of the purpose test. A reservation is a succinct description of the subject area covered. It includes reserved authorities carrying out functions relating to that subject and criminal offences relating to that subject.
The general reservations in part 1 of the new schedule reserve the fundamental tenets of the constitution: the Crown, the civil service, defence and the armed forces, the regulation of political parties, and foreign affairs. As a single legal jurisdiction operates in England and Wales, we also reserve matters such as courts and non-devolved tribunals, judges, and civil and criminal proceedings. However, we have made appropriate exceptions to these reservations to enable the Assembly to exercise devolved functions. For example, the Assembly can confer devolved functions on the courts or provide for appeals from devolved tribunals to reserved tribunals.
Amendment 6, tabled by Plaid Cymru, seeks to modify these core reservations by allowing the Assembly to consolidate the constitutional arrangements for Wales. It surely must be a fundamental principle that the UK’s constitutional arrangements, including Parliament’s authority to devolve its own powers, are reserved. We have a constitutional settlement for Wales, the Government of Wales Act 2006 as amended, and amendment 6 is simply not necessary.
Part 2 lists the specific reservations. We want there to be no doubt where the boundary of the Assembly’s legislative competence lies. The list is lengthy because it is quite specific in its reservations and provides exceptions to those reservations. Previously, in the draft, there were some broad headlines, but the current Bill is far more specific, which necessitates further detail on what is included.
Jonathan Edwards
During this afternoon’s debate, the Secretary of State has been challenged on many of the reservations listed in part 2. In the interests of transparency, and before we get to the remaining stages of the Bill, will he commit the Wales Office to publishing a document outlining why each reservation has been made?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Member is aware that I have an open style and am happy to maintain dialogue and work with all opposition parties, as well as with the Welsh Government, in seeking to come to an accommodation. However, hovercrafts, for example, have been highlighted a couple of times. That reservation relates to technical standards and is about a distinct class of transport, such as ships in relation to shipping and planes in relation to aviation. Therefore, although, on the face of it, one might ask what the purpose of a reservation is, very often there are technical issues well beyond that. I am happy to continue a dialogue in that respect, as we continue to do with the Welsh Government.
Paul Flynn
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider breaking the pattern we have had of passing Wales Bills and, then, five years later, coming back to try to undo the damage we have done with the previous Bill? Will he accept the spirit of unanimity on this side of the Committee when we point out the problem with many of these reservations? Take, for instance, the reservation on dangerous dogs, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). If there is any issue on which this Parliament has proved its legislative incompetence over the years it is the Dangerous Dog Act 1991. That is an example of how not to legislate. Wales could do better perhaps.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Member is well aware that 90% of the Welsh population live within 50 miles of the border between England and Wales. Clearly, some reservations are sensible so that people can walk their dogs across that boundary; otherwise, it could lead to significant complications. The hon. Member raised that specific practical example, and I am happy to maintain the dialogue on that.
Mr Hoyle, you would not believe it, but the vast majority of reservations are not contentious. They simply reflect those areas of policy that are best legislated on a Wales basis or at a UK level, and the further powers that are being devolved in the Bill. Constructive discussions on the reservations will continue between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, and, happily, with Opposition Members. I recognise that some reservations reflect the difference in policy between us. Others are subject to further detailed discussions, which I am happy to continue. In the context of the purpose test, the list of reservations before us today will ensure greater clarity and certainty in determining what is within the competence of the Assembly and what is not.
I turn now to the amendments to schedule 1.
Hywel Williams
The Secretary of State says with a flourish and extreme confidence that the list of reservations is sensible. If so, why is he so reticent about publishing his reasoning? He asserts, but he does not explain.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman will know that I am happy to continue open dialogues. As Secretary of State, that is the style I have sought to use, to build on that set by my predecessor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to continue working in such an open and constructive way.
Alun Cairns
I would like to make further progress, if I may.
A whole host of amendments have been tabled in relation to policing and justice. The St David’s day process found no consensus to devolve the criminal justice system in Wales. The Government gave a clear manifesto commitment that policing and criminal justice will remain reserved. In our first day in Committee last week, I made clear the Government’s commitment to maintain the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. Crime, public order and policing are inextricably linked to the criminal justice system. There already exists an All Wales Criminal Justice Board, which consults fully with the Welsh Government and extends to prison provision. The Welsh Government are also in regular dialogue with the National Offender Management Service about its functions.
Amendment 116, tabled by Plaid Cymru, and amendment 87, tabled by Labour, seek to remove the reservations for late-night entertainment and alcohol licensing respectively. There was much debate within this group surrounding this. The Government consider both subjects to be closely connected to policing and maintaining public order. Given that policing and criminal justice remain reserved matters, late-night entertainment and alcohol licensing should also be reserved under the principle that has been established.
Amendment 155, tabled by Plaid Cymru, seeks to reserve “the Crown Prosecution Service” rather than “prosecutors” in the general reservation on the single legal jurisdiction. There is no intention to prevent the Assembly from continuing to specify devolved prosecutors for devolved offences in the legislation. The reservation of prosecutors would not prevent the Assembly from legislating to, for example, make local authorities in Wales the prosecuting authority for particular devolved offences, as was highlighted by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). I agree, however, with the underlying policy intention of the amendment and will consider further, before Report, whether the reservation of prosecutors should be modified. I am happy to return to this at that stage.
Government amendments 53 to 58, tabled in my name, seek to put Wales in the same position as Scotland in respect of the reservations in C5, which reserves all prohibition and regulation of imports and exports in and out of the United Kingdom. It does, however, allow the Assembly to control movements of certain things, such as plants, animals, foods and fertilisers, for specified purposes. The amendments seek to put the Assembly in the same position as the Scottish Parliament by extending its competence to regulate movement of these things both within Wales and in and out of Wales.
Significant attention has been given to transport reservations, with a number of amendments being tabled by both Plaid Cymru and the Labour party. The transport reservations were subject to close scrutiny when the Bill was at a draft stage, and there is no basis on which to devolve railway services, coastguard services or aspects of road transport, as the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) proposes. It is not what the Silk commission recommended, and my focus has been on delivering powers for a purpose.
Mr David Jones
The Secretary of State mentioned the Silk commission’s recommendations, but he will recall that I asked for the rationale. I wonder whether he could explain it, please.
Alun Cairns
I am happy to explain that given that local authorities already have the power to vary speed limits, it is a logical, sensible extension to give further powers to the Welsh Government in this area.
Time does not permit me to address in detail all the remaining amendments to schedule 1. That is in part because hon. Members from Plaid Cymru seem to seek the devolution of just about everything, and they seem to want to reverse the principles on which the Bill is based. I am pursuing a pragmatic, practical approach as we amend and develop the Bill, so I reject the amendments to devolve Sunday trading, the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity, coal, heat and cooling networks, energy conservation, working-age benefits, child benefit, guardians allowance, most employment and industrial relations, employment support programmes, abortion, health and safety, broadcasting, safety at sports grounds, equal opportunities, bank holidays and the Children’s Commissioner.
Amendment 124, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), seeks to carve out from the employment reservation terms and conditions of employment in relation to Wales public authorities. The Government believe strongly that the underlying legislative framework of rights and responsibilities in the workplace must be reserved for the labour market to work most effectively across Great Britain.
Stephen Doughty
Does the Secretary of State accept that, as a Minister told me during proceedings on the Trade Union Bill, the reserved powers granted under the legislation effectively allow any Minister in the UK Government to undermine a partnership or industrial relations decision made by a Welsh Minister in the running of the Welsh NHS or the education service, for example?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the legislative background of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and the Bill seeks to expand on the 2006 Act in relation to employment rights. There was no intention in that Act to devolve those purposes, and we have continued the principle that was well established by the previous Labour Government.
I shall deal with amendments on three further areas. First, in relation to amendment 88, which was tabled by members of Plaid Cymru, and amendments 127 to 129 and new clause 10, the Government are considering the conclusions of the joint Governments’ programme board in relation to the Silk recommendations on water and sewerage. The joint committee reported only a couple of weeks ago, and it is only appropriate that the Government give proper, full consideration to that report. I hope that we can find a consensus among the Welsh Government and the opposition parties on a way forward, but there are a whole range of technical issues that need further consideration.
Secondly, in response to amendment 107, I assure the hon. Member for Arfon that the Assembly will have the competence to legislate in relation to party election broadcasts at Assembly and local government elections in Wales. Party political broadcasts are considered to be part of the conduct of elections, and there is no need to modify the broadcasting reservation to achieve that. Thirdly, on amendment 115, which relates to teachers’ pay, I am in principle in favour of devolving teachers’ pay and conditions, but there is a case for further discussions between the UK Government and the Welsh Government about how that can best be achieved.
Finally, new clause 1 and consequential amendment 2 are intended to devolve the management functions of the Crown Estate commissioners in relation to Wales to Welsh Ministers or to a person who is nominated by them. That broadly reflects the provisions in the Scotland Act 2016. The devolution of the Crown Estate in Scotland was recommended by cross-party consensus in the Smith agreement but, as hon. Members know, the St David’s day process found no similar consensus in respect of Wales.
Paragraph 1 of proposed new schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 will prevent an Assembly Act from modifying the law on reserved matters. Paragraph 2 will provide flexibility for an Assembly Act provision to be able to modify the law on reserved matters, where doing so is ancillary to a provision that does not relate to a reserved matter and there is no greater effect on reserved matters than is necessary to give effect to the purpose of the provision. The restriction relating to the private law in paragraph 3 and the restriction concerning the criminal law in paragraph 4 are intended to provide a general level of protection for the unified legal system of England and Wales while enabling the Assembly to enforce its legislation.
The protected areas of private law include core subjects such as the law of contract and property. However, the Assembly is given the power to modify the private law where the purpose of doing so does not relate to a reserved matter. Importantly, the Assembly is not permitted to modify the private law for its own sake and cannot make wholesale changes to the private law, such as the wholesale rewriting of contract law. Any modification of the private law must be for a range of devolved purposes.
On the criminal law side, in paragraph 4 the serious offences protected from modification include treason, homicide offences, sexual offences and serious offences against the person. It is right that these serious offences remain consistent across the UK. In addition, the Assembly will not be able to alter the law that governs the existing framework of criminal law, such as sentencing and capacity to commit crimes.
I am conscious of the fact that a whole host of issues have been raised, so I will conclude. This has been a full and wide-ranging debate. I hope I have been able to assure the Committee that the reserved powers model will provide a clear, robust and lasting devolution settlement for Wales. I urge Opposition Members to withdraw amendment 118.
Paul Flynn
We will press amendment 123 to a Division, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 118.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
New Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006
Amendment proposed: 83, page 47, line 32, leave out Section B5. —(Liz Saville Roberts.)
This amendment removes the reservation of crime, public order and policing from the list of reserved powers.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Hywel Williams
I want to speak to amendments 74 to 80, 81 and 82, 151 and 154, which I tabled along with my hon. Friends.
I welcome clauses 22, 23 and 24, which confer competence on Welsh Ministers in relation to onshore petroleum licensing, including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, about which the Welsh people care a great deal. If the people of Wales do not want fracking, our Government should be able to ensure that it does not happen. Given that the Welsh Government and the National Assembly as a whole voted unanimously against fracking in Wales, I hope that the Secretary of State will work with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that until the Bill is passed, the United Kingdom Government honour that unanimous opposition in Wales and no new licences are issued there. I hope that, at the end of the debate, either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will give some indication that that will be the case.
I also welcome clause 26. Some time ago, I had a meeting with the traffic commissioner for Wales, who was based in Birmingham at the time. He was very unhappy about being traffic commissioner for Wales, and pointed out that not only did he work from Birmingham, but he lived in Derby, which is a considerable distance from Wales. Many years ago, the Welsh Affairs Committee called for the commissioner to be moved to Cardiff, and I am glad that the clause achieves a great deal more than that.
Amendments 74 and 75, and consequential amendments 76 to 80, would remove the 350 MW limit on the Welsh Government’s legislative competence in the field of energy. I would happily put a fiver on what is on the Under-Secretary of State’s notepad: my guess is that he intends to say that the limit was recommended by the Silk commission. I wish I had put that fiver down, because I see that the Under-Secretary is smiling.
Of course I accept that the Silk commission recommended the limit, but let us return for a moment to the purpose and the terms of the commission. It was set up by the coalition Government, with a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales. It consisted of one nominee from each of the four main parties at the time, including the Secretary of State’s and mine, along with various academic and other experts. It consulted widely and extensively with the political parties, civic society, academia and industry experts, as well as the public. Its two reports represented a consensus, reflecting not only the views of the political parties but, crucially, those of the public and of experts—that is, the views of civic society in general.
With that purpose in mind, the players in all four political parties had to compromise, and all four—including the Secretary of State’s party and mine—did so, in order to achieve a national consensus. That was a contrast with the St David’s day process, in which I played a minor part. At the time, the Secretary of State appeared to hand a veto to each party in respect of what it wished to reject. Labour used its veto to the full, which reflected the stance of the then shadow Secretary of State, as a self-confessed “proud Unionist”. It seemed to me that the veto extended to Whitehall Departments, in terms of which matters they wanted to reserve.
As was clear from my earlier intervention on the Secretary of State, I am still slightly unconvinced about this process—
Alun Cairns
What example has there been of devolution to Wales in the past where the Secretary of State has really sought to bring about agreement throughout the House on a pragmatic, practical way forward, rather than bulldozing one particular model over another?
Hywel Williams
I was very glad to play a minor part in the St David’s day process, as was my colleague at the time, Elfyn Llwyd. I think there was a structural deficiency in that process, in that if individual parties wanted to veto a particular matter, they could do so—fine: that was what the process was about—but, to my mind at least, one party made rather a meal of that dispensation, and vetoed a great deal that could quite reasonably have been included. The criticism of the first draft of the Bill reflects that, but the current version is a great improvement, and I am happy to pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his predecessor for their achievement.
Some parties compromised on policing, and some on broadcasting. My party compromised on energy. We have always believed that Wales’s natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Wales, and that the people of Wales are best placed to make decisions about how best to put those resources to use. That is our historic stance. We have never believed in placing a limit on that principle, above which the people of Wales should no longer have a say. We never thought that that was a good idea, and never thought that it was necessary. However, we compromised, for the good of the Silk process and to ensure good order and progress. We agreed to the arbitrary limit of 350 MW in return for the support of others on policing and broadcasting.
The Secretary of State has chosen not to follow that consensual path, and to pick and choose from the Silk Commission’s recommendations which matters to accept and which to forgo. Indeed, he has chosen to ignore the majority of what Silk had to say. He cannot now reasonably defend that Westminster power grab and attack Plaid Cymru by claiming that he is only following the commission’s recommendations. We shall see what the Under-Secretary of State has to say about that one.
Clause 36 must be understood as it stands. Having voted to give Scotland complete control over its natural resources, with no limits, the Secretary of State is proposing to devolve energy in Wales only up to a limit of 350 MW, with anything above that threshold being reserved to Westminster. Why does he believe that Scottish natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Scotland, but Wales’s natural resources, above the limit, should be deemed to be the preserve of Westminster? Does he think that the people of Wales cannot be trusted with any energy projects above 350 MW? Do we suffer from some congenital infirmity in that respect? For that matter, why should it be 350 MW rather than 351, or 349? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will enlighten us. What factual evidence has he to justify that figure?
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) referred to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. It is proposed that the lagoon should be devolved to Wales, but that the proposed Cardiff and Colwyn Bay tidal lagoons, which are identical apart from scale, should be reserved to Westminster. What is the rhyme or reason for that? What practical reasons are there for such a distinction?
Let me give another practical example. In my constituency, there is a great capacity for hydro-electric power. The Dinorwig scheme, which has been mentioned, is a massive scheme that can power Manchester for five hours at the throw of a switch. It takes eight seconds for the turbines to start turning. It is an astonishing scheme, which I think is one of the great energy production secrets of Wales. I understand that the switch is thrown in Connah’s Quay and not in London, and that it controls not only Dinorwig but the Stwlan facility in Blaenau Ffestiniog, as well as Maentwrog. So here we have an astonishingly good scheme and the potential for several more, some of the same scale but also some smaller ones.
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.
Alun Cairns
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s proposal on devolving corporation tax. How would Wales cope with the significant volatility of corporation tax income?
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful for that intervention because it provides a great insight into the Secretary of State’s thinking. If that is his argument on fiscal powers, he should align himself with the Labour party, which opposes Wales having income tax powers for exactly the same reason. This is about whether one believes that the Welsh Government can use such levers effectively to create jobs in our country. That intervention is indicative of the Secretary of State’s mindset.
Given that corporation tax is devolved in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Secretary of State will do his job, stand up for Wales and make it a devolved tax in Wales, as was recommended by the Silk commission’s report.