Wales Bill

Debate between Chris Evans and Jonathan Edwards

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

I can only speak from my own experience. I use the Blackwood high street test when I go to Islwyn. If I walked down that street now and asked people what they thought of the Assembly, unfortunately I would be met with disinterest from most of them. If I talked about the constitutional arguments we have had today or to anybody tuning in today, they would wonder why we were talking about the Wales Bill. They would be more concerned about health, education and transport than debating giving further powers to the Assembly. That is the simple fact.

What we see in this Bill is an anomaly. On the one hand, we see the Government lifting the ban on dual candidacy, yet they are also banning double-jobbing. It seems to me that there is something fundamentally undemocratic about the way the Welsh Assembly operates. If there is a vacancy or a resignation under the first-past-the-post system, there is a by-election. That is correct; that is the model we follow in this place. However, as the Secretary of State for Wales will know, if there is a vacancy or a resignation from the list, people move up one. That is not democratic; there is no looking for a further mandate.

There are serious problems with our electoral system. First, it is difficult to understand. People in Gwent will say to me, “Why are thousands of Labour votes thrown away and I have a Tory”—or someone from the nationalist party—“representing me, but I’ve not voted for them? What is the point in voting Labour in the first-past-the-post system, yet voting Labour in the top-up system but getting no Labour AMs?” That is the situation we have to face and we are not talking about it. When we talk about dual candidacy, I think basic fairness says that in a race of four people, somebody has got to win and somebody has got to lose. Nobody gets the consolation prize of going to the Assembly.

The most damning case against dual candidacy appears in the impact assessment, which says:

“The Government of Wales Act 2006 modified the original devolution settlement to ban candidates at an Assembly election standing simultaneously in both a constituency and on a regional list. This provision has been considered unfair on smaller parties in Wales who may have a smaller pool of high quality candidates to represent them in elections.”

What the impact assessment is saying is that smaller parties in Wales, such as the Liberal Democrats or the nationalists, might not have enough high-quality candidates to stand; therefore, we should relax the rules on dual candidacy.

I do believe it is right to end double-jobbing. It makes no sense and it does not allow MPs or AMs to represent their constituents effectively. That part of the Bill is right, but the worst thing about the Bill is that we will have to come here again in a couple of years’ time and debate the constitutional settlement. That is turning people off not only the Assembly, but politics in Wales, because all that Wales is dominated by at the moment is constitutional arguments.

And so we come to the great part of the Bill: the devolution of income tax. The Government accepted the Silk commission recommendation that Wales should have the power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum. However, they did not accept the model presented by the Silk commission, which would allow bands to be varied independently. Instead, they would need to be changed in lockstep. If the Government want to commission a report at a cost of £1 million in these economic circumstances, surely they should have included all the Silk recommendations and we could have debated them on the Floor of the House. The devolution of tax-raising powers is not a priority—we can see that in our constituency postbags every week. We need a triple test. We need to talk about the issue of fair funding and a period of assignment to see whether it is in the interests of Wales and the UK to devolve income tax.

We already know that Wales is underfunded to the tune of £300 million, but varying income tax powers will not address the issue of fair funding. Once the power to partially set income tax rates is devolved, the block grant will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the Welsh share of current tax receipts. To accept this power while the block grant underfunds Wales would be irresponsible and lock in underfunding for ever. The Wales Bill does not commit to reform of the Barnett formula either, even though the Secretary of State himself has said that the formula is coming towards the end of its life. Again, that proves that this is only a piecemeal Bill and that we will unfortunately be back here on the Floor of the House, however boring and irritating we find these constitutional debates.

If we are to devolve tax powers, there needs to be further examination by the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to see how that will affect tax rates on both sides of the border. When we talk about jobs and the economy, it is also important to note that they are being created only by private sector businesses. We should therefore be speaking to those businesses and asking how their PAYE and payroll systems would be affected by the devolution of tax, but we are not. When we are varying tax powers, we also have to bear in mind that many more people live close to the Wales-England border and have to cross that border than live close to the Scotland-England border. Nearly half the Welsh population lives within 25 miles of the English border, while 10% of the English population live within 25 miles of the other side. That is 6.3 million in total. In contrast, just 4% of the Scottish population live within 25 miles of the English border.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is quoted in the Daily Post today as saying that Wales should have the same fiscal package as Scotland. Is that his position or is it not?

[Chris Evans]

Yes, it is.

The fact that the Welsh border is significantly more densely populated than that of Scotland means that the complexity associated with different tax rates is much greater in Wales, for both employers and employees. Again, however, very little Treasury analysis has been conducted. Members may talk of a Scottish model, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) did, but I think that more work must be done. We must have a report. We must know the facts and figures before we proceed further. We must seek a fair system for the whole of the United Kingdom. We cannot allow tax powers in Wales to be different from those in Scotland and England. The one thing that we have to realise is that, for all our constitutional debates, there is not an economic border on the Bristol channel, or to the north-west on Offa’s dyke. Business does not operate in that way. Business will go where business costs are lower.

Finance Bill

Debate between Chris Evans and Jonathan Edwards

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Much as I think the Liberal Democrats believe that the world revolves around them—[Interruption.]

[Jonathan Edwards]

Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman out. He will be aware that in Wales we had a council tax revaluation for domestic properties in 2005. Does he think that a similar evaluation for England might achieve the objectives of a mansion tax and probably raise far more?

[Chris Evans]

I find myself in shock, but I agree with a member of the Welsh nationalist party. There is some merit in that idea, which is something we can look at.

This new clause presents an opportunity for the Conservatives to reverse the inequality that I have talked about—the two Britains that are starting to emerge in our society. If we agree with a mansion tax, we will be able to fund a tax cut for millions of people. We support the increase in personal allowances, but the reintroduction of the 10p tax would mean that work pays once again. I know that the Tories will say that we abolished it. We must be big enough in politics to admit that we got something wrong, and we got it wrong when we abolished the 10p tax rate, which would give the lowest in society an opportunity to go out to work and make work pay. This is what I mean when I talk about how difficult it is to get back to work once someone is out of it. We can do this today.

Fuel Poverty (Wales)

Debate between Chris Evans and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing the debate.

This is the third fuel poverty debate I have spoken in since I came to the House. The first was quite early on, and I had not been a Member very long—I was green behind the ears. Constituents who had come to my surgery had told me anecdotes about sitting in front of the television wearing coats because they were cold and about being unable to afford to heat their houses or turn on an extra bar on their fires. I was deeply concerned because constituencies such as mine have large numbers of former miners with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other illnesses who need to heat their homes.

Two years before that, I was working for my predecessor, now Lord Touhig. I was doing some research for his speech at the time, and I spoke to the president of the National Old Aged Pensioners Association of Wales and asked him for some examples. He said that many members do not know they are in fuel poverty and simply put on an extra pullover or go to bed early. I was quite struck that the problem was still going on.

The second fuel poverty debate that I spoke in was on the effect on vulnerable people and, in particular, those suffering from cancer. I discovered from Macmillan that 70% of cancer patients lose, on average, 50% of their household income during treatment. One in four cancer sufferers also suffers from fuel poverty. I was disappointed with the response of the Minister at the time. Rather than talking about positive action, he mentioned the example of Her Majesty the Queen being in fuel poverty, because it was being measured wrongly. That is all very well and warm words, but to someone who is suffering and choosing between heating and eating, it does not matter whether the Queen or anyone else who can easily pay their fuel bill is in fuel poverty. When I listen to debates such as this, I am seriously concerned, because every time we come back to the issue and receive promises from the Government, nothing happens.

Fuel poverty hits Wales harder than anywhere else, as it has more people off-grid. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned, we have the highest bills in the country, yet we export more electricity than any other region. We have more people on coin-operated meters than anywhere else in the country. More people have to press the button that disconnects them from electricity bills. More than a third of Welsh households are in fuel poverty, which is higher than the UK average and higher than any other UK region. By 2015—the time of the next general election, which is when we will go before our constituents—the average household in Wales will have £1,470 less than in 2010. At the same time, energy bills are going up and up. What are the Government doing?

I am proud that in Wales we have a Labour-led Assembly that has a target of ending fuel poverty by 2018. It is taking action through energy efficiency schemes. The Westminster Government could take that on. The work being done by the Welsh Assembly follows on from that done by the previous Labour Government. It is in vogue and fashionable among Government Members to attack the Labour Government. They say that we should apologise for everything we did, but I am not apologising for winter fuel payments. I am not apologising for central heating programmes, and I am not apologising for energy efficiency commitments that improved the lives of so many people in this country.

What have we seen in comparison? Since Labour left office, it is the shame of this coalition Government that they cut the winter fuel payment. They have overseen rising energy bills and there has been no reduction in the number of households struggling to heat their homes. I have spoken before about the better targeting of support for vulnerable groups. It is all very well targeting it and it is all very well having the winter fuel payment, but it is eaten up by constantly rising energy bills. It is perverse that every time we hear of rising energy bills we also hear of record profits by the same energy companies that are pleading poverty. It is up to us in this House and this Government to stand up to those energy companies. It is no good inviting them round to Downing street for tea and biscuits and begging them, “Please, please will you reduce your energy bills. It is making us look bad.” We need real action and we need a regulator that will fine the companies when it finds that they are colluding to put prices up.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is making a typically powerful speech. Both he and the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) alluded to the fact that Wales is a net exporter of electricity, yet we have the highest levels of fuel poverty. Can I take it therefore that the next Labour manifesto will include a promise that Wales gets control of its natural resources?

Constitutional Reform (Wales)

Debate between Chris Evans and Jonathan Edwards

Thursday 19th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans]

That leads on to my final point about the policy overall. Perhaps I can look at the issue from a wider angle and step outside Wales for a moment, if you will allow me, Mr Davies. We are a nation state, and what seriously worries me about this exercise is that it is based on figures rather than communities. In that respect, I am glad that I followed my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, because he knows about the situation in Northern Ireland, where wards and constituencies must strike a fine balance and could cause major problems. However, we have had no scrutiny of any kind, so these issues have not come out.

The coalition has hung on to its belief that people distrust politicians, but when people voted no for AV, they dispelled the myth that it was constitutional reform that we needed; we actually need to reconnect with people. Forcing through the proposed changes will mean more disconnect and people being more removed from politics, and that is a dangerous game. I therefore finish by paying tribute, as I did at the beginning, to the Welsh Affairs Committee, which is the only Committee to have looked at this issue properly.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

rose—

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Chris Evans and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

I will not be the postmaster, as I have enough on my plate as it is.

As I was saying, we seem to have enough of a problem getting people to become postmasters. If postmasters start losing a large amount of their business, how we will recruit people into these positions? Nobody becomes a postmaster in the hope of becoming a millionaire. Perhaps I am naive, but I believe that people become postmasters because they want to serve their community. They want to be part of their community and provide a service, but who in their right mind would want to be a postmaster when they are having their business taken away? That situation is a tragedy.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that 71.3% of Welsh post offices are in rural areas, which compares with the UK average of 55%. Does he not therefore share my concern that if there is no long-term inter-business agreement, that will have a disproportionate effect on Wales?

[Chris Evans]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely. As a Welsh MP, I know that this Government have certainly hit our country hard. I well remember the posturing of some Members during the Second Reading debate. Many Government Members were boasting, patting themselves on the back and telling us what they had done to keep their post offices open when they were up against the wicked Labour Government. What will they do next time if this Bill goes through? Before they go into the Lobby, they should think hard. If they are faced with a post office closure in five or 10 years’ time, what will they say to their constituents? Are they going to say, “I didn’t think it through,” or “I followed my Government Whips”? That is what they are faced with at the moment. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) talked about people’s legs being cut from under them, and that is what the Bill will do to these Members politically—I am saying that as an Opposition Member.