Wales Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

It seems to me that that is a concern of the Mayor of London and does not really fall within the scope of today’s discussion.

Our proposal will put new economic levers in the hands of the Assembly and Welsh Government, while also providing independent streams of revenue to facilitate borrowing. It will help Welsh Ministers to grow the Welsh economy and ensure that its performance has a direct impact on their budget.

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

In devolving those minor taxes, the UK Government are conceding the principle of fiscal empowerment for the Welsh Government. Why does the Secretary of State therefore feel the need to require a referendum on devolving income tax?

[Mr Jones]

Simply because it is an important constitutional step. It was given to the Scottish people in 1997, and we feel it is necessary to pay equal respect to the people of Wales on the occasion of the proposed devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Secretary of State mentioned that one of the main reasons for devolving income tax was to incentivise the Welsh Government, yet he handcuffs them with his proposed lockstep, which was not included in the Silk recommendations. In the unlikely event of a no vote in Scotland, does he expect the lockstep to remain in Scotland following its referendum?

[Mr Jones]

I am not here to speculate on what will happen in Scotland in September, but I will talk about the lockstep in a moment—no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be paying close attention and intervening as he considers appropriate.

The reality is that this legislation—income tax devolution following a referendum—is a real opportunity to be seized with both hands by the Welsh Government. It is an opportunity to make Wales more competitive and to make the Welsh Government more accountable, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd now agrees. Our challenge to those who view the devolution of income tax negatively is not to shy away from this opportunity, but to seize the moment with enthusiasm and support the proposals in this Bill for a referendum on income tax devolution.

The Silk commission recommended that the Welsh Government should be able to set separate Welsh rates of income tax for each of the three income tax bands, but the Government believe that a single Welsh rate for all three bands—the so-called “lockstep”—is the right system for Wales. The same system is being introduced in Scotland under the Scotland Act 2012. The Government have a responsibility to take a UK-wide view: to consider the interests not only of Wales, but of the United Kingdom as a whole, including Wales. If the devolution of income tax is supported in a referendum, the lockstep mechanism would be the best way to maintain a progressive tax system that redistributes wealth across the whole of the UK but does not unnecessarily benefit one part of the UK at the expense of another.

The Bill also devolves responsibility to the Assembly for its own budgetary arrangements, so that it can establish new procedures for scrutinising and setting the annual budget. That was also recommended by the Silk commission, and by the Welsh Affairs Committee following its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Wales Bill. The Bill before us today and the Command Paper the Government have published alongside it have benefited greatly from the Select Committee’s thorough and rigorous scrutiny, and I am grateful to all hon. Members on that Committee for their hard work.

Although the majority of the Bill is devoted to fiscal devolution, the legislation also implements a number of other important reforms: it permanently moves the Assembly to five-year terms; it removes the prohibition on dual candidacy; and it makes provision to preclude Assembly Members from simultaneously being Members of this House. Those are all changes which we consulted on in our Green Paper in 2012. The move to permanent five-year terms will make it less likely that Assembly elections will clash with UK general elections, now that the length of Parliaments is fixed at five years. It is important that Assembly elections should be contested, wherever possible, on issues specific to Wales, and the Bill ensures that they will not be overshadowed by the wider issues that often dominate elections to this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

That is not inevitable at all. I shall discuss the issue later in my speech, when I will answer the hon. Gentleman in full.

[Jonathan Edwards]

In Scotland, the hon. Gentleman’s party proposes to devolve responsibility for 40% of the Scottish block grant in terms of tax revenues. How does that sit with the doomsday scenario of tax competition that he has just outlined?

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

We will take not a single lesson from any Government Members about how to provide for the most vulnerable people in Britain, because this Government have left people in Wales £1,600 a year worse off and they have overseen the largest reduction in living standards since the 1870s. The last time living standards fell this far was during the time of the Paris commune and the Franco-Prussian war—that is how disastrously this Government have handled the economy in Wales. We will take no lessons—absolutely none—from them.

Given the opportunity, we would put a different question with regard to income tax varying powers for Wales, and we will seek to amend the Bill in order to do so. It would be different in two regards. First, as several Members have suggested, we would increase the amount of money by which tax might be reduced in Wales from 10p to 15p. The two reasons for doing so are very simple. First, we believe it would increase borrowing, given the causal link the Government are drawing between the volume of taxes and the amount of borrowing. Secondly—I would have thought that Members from the nationalist party in Wales would be pleased with this—it would provide a far neater degree of symmetry between what we are proposing for Wales and what we are proposing for England. We remain concerned that constant chipping and changing of the constitution, which the current Government seem keen to allow to continue, is not in the interests of the stability of Britain or Wales. We will seek to legislate to introduce symmetry between Wales and Scotland, both on the model of devolved powers and on taxation.

[Jonathan Edwards]

We welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is proposing to increase the level of income tax, but my understanding of what he said over the weekend is that he wants to keep the lockstep but remove the ability to vary the rate up or down such that it would only to be able to move up. Would he, therefore, label his new policy “lockstep-plus”?

[Owen Smith]

No, I would label it as a progressive change and I will explain why we feel the need to introduce such a change.

The second way in which we would change the question relates to our concerns about the fact that this Tory Government and an increasingly right-wing nationalist party in Wales are proposing to cut the top rate of tax. [Laughter.] Nationalist party Members laugh, but the economic adviser to their leader says he wants to cut only the top rate of tax. I do not know what we are meant to conclude from that, but it sounds pretty right wing to me. An alliance between the nats and the Tories in Wales seeks to reduce taxes just for the wealthiest, but we feel that that would be entirely out of step with the progressive values of Wales. That is why we will give the Welsh Government the ability to set a progressive rate for Wales, to guard against further Tory tax cuts for the wealthiest and to ensure that those Welsh values of social justice and fairness in taxation can be preserved by the Welsh people in the event of the Tories wishing to increase the injustice and unfairness of the tax system in Wales and across Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

The Electoral Commission disagreed with me, and, not for the first time from my personal experience, it was wrong.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Labour party has also had candidates that stand on the list and in constituencies? In 2003, on the North Wales regional list, Sandy Mewies Lesley Griffiths, Carl Sergeant and Karen Sinclair stood both in constituencies and in the region. In South Wales Central, Rhodri Morgan, Lorraine Barnett, Sue Essex, Jane Davidson, Jane Hutt and Leighton Andrews stood in both the region and the constituencies, and in Mid and West Wales, Christine Gwyther stood in both.

[Mr Hain]

Yes, indeed. That is my exact point. I am not making a politically partisan point; I am making a democratic point. The practice clouded political accountability and denied voters their right to reject a particular candidate at the ballot box. A change made by the Government of Wales Act 2006 requiring candidates to choose whether to stand for a constituency or on the regional list put the voters back in charge. It cannot be right for losers to become winners through the back door, despite having been rejected by voters. That is an abuse of democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Not necessarily, because an added scenario that Gerry Holtham did not take into account is the austerity package that has been put together by this Government, which has led to huge cuts in the Welsh Assembly Government’s budget. To begin with, those cuts have not kept up with inflation, but all the indications are that they will be significantly deeper. That is an important backdrop to the whole matter that we are tackling.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that there is a link between the Barnett formula and devolving financial powers, but that is the position that the Labour party has taken, and it is a roadblock. Will he confirm that at the next Westminster election Labour’s manifesto will include a commitment to review the Barnett formula, because last week his colleagues in Scotland were saying that they would rather die in the ditch before Barnett was reformed?

[Wayne David]

The Labour party had in its previous general election manifesto a commitment on modifying the Barnett formula, with the introduction of fair funding and a floor. That is currently Labour’s policy, and I have every confidence that it will be taken forward.

Given the possibility of a referendum on the income tax powers—although that is not very likely—it is rather disappointing that the Government have not learned lessons from previous experience of referendums across the UK, especially in Wales. The Electoral Commission has made the valid point that we need to learn one lesson, in particular, from the previous referendum on whether the Assembly should have law-making powers, when there was no coherent, registered no campaign and therefore there could not be a registered yes campaign. As a result, we did not have the kind of debate on the Assembly’s powers that we should have had, and that is partly why we had such a relatively low turnout. I am slightly concerned that the Government have not learned that lesson and have not reflected it in their legislative proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I am indeed very glad that the Bill is before us, as I said at the start of my speech, but I am contrasting the time between the commission reporting and the Government responding. We suddenly have the Bill before us today. I certainly welcome that, but I have no idea why it has appeared so quickly; it is not for me to comment on the lack of other Government business.

I know that the term “a slap in the face for Wales” is very well used, and I hope that it will be reported tomorrow by our friends in the BBC, but I must say that to ignore such a fundamental report—as the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out—for so long is somewhat disrespectful. More importantly for us in Plaid Cymru and for other hon. Members, it is also damaging to the political and economic progress that our country can make. The Welsh Government continue to be denied the powers that they should be able to exercise—they are also denied the funding that they should have—and that were recommended by Gerry Holtham. However, we are where we are—but where are we?

Towards the end of last year, the Prime Minister swept into the Senedd building in Cardiff Bay to a media fanfare and the flashes of cameras, and announced new financial powers for Wales, but the proposals were rather light on detail. Indeed, the Prime Minister had discovered “anti-gravitas”, as I called it at the time, in making a proposal that then seemed to float away. It was not until some weeks later that we learned that all was not as it seemed. The Government had cherry-picked the cross-party Silk commission’s recommendations—accepting some, but only in part, and even omitting others.

The draft Wales Bill was published in January, and the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, was tasked with its pre-legislative scrutiny, with a tight turnaround for producing a report. I must say that I enjoyed the process of scrutinising the Bill, and I pay tribute to all Committee members and to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), for his chairmanship. Contrary to his rather fierce, if not sometimes eccentric, persona in this Chamber, he was the model of a balanced Chairman, and I was very glad, if slightly surprised, that he acted in that way.

To return to the narrative, the Government then seemed to be in a hurry, and we now have the Bill. The Welsh Affairs Committee sessions took evidence from a variety of independent academics, civil society groups and even elected politicians from both this place and the National Assembly for Wales. Interestingly, even Opposition party leaders from Cardiff graced the Committee’s sittings. That move was not uncontroversial, because the Committee’s purpose is of course to scrutinise the Government at Westminster. Having the party leaders from Cardiff caused a certain amount of head scratching, because it was something of a first. However, it indicated that this was not some humdrum scrutiny exercise of a small Whitehall Department or a minor Bill because, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), the Committee was considering part of the blueprint for the next stage in our national political development, and it deserved such a level of scrutiny.

The consensus that began to emerge was that borrowing powers were vital to allowing the Government of Wales, formed of whichever party or parties, to be able to borrow for investment to boost our economy and create jobs. However, the consensus was that the lockstep on income tax rates meant that the provision could not realistically be varied, because the power was unusable. Other than the duo of the Secretary of State for Wales and his Treasury colleague, the Exchequer Secretary—unsurprisingly—all agreed that it would be far better to have the ability to vary each individual income tax band rate.

During sittings of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I pointed out a paradoxical effect of raising or lowering tax rates with a lockstep. If we raise the tax rates with a lockstep, the higher rates are then less progressive than the lower ones: if we raise tax by a penny on the 20p band, we increase it by a twentieth, while if we raise it by a penny in the 40p band, we increase it by a fortieth. We should bear that slightly obscure ratio issue in mind. Equally, a decrease has a similar effect.

The cross-party Silk commission recommended in the first place that we should not have a lockstep. I proposed an amendment in discussions on the Welsh Affairs Committee report—I proposed that the Committee recommended dropping the lockstep. Unsurprisingly, our three friends from the Tories voted against my amendment; the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and I voted for it; but, unaccountably, Labour members of the Committee managed to abstain. Even though they have publicly declared opposition to the lockstep in the Committee, they did not step up to the plate.

[Jonathan Edwards]

How baffled is my hon. Friend on the Labour party’s position on the lockstep? The First Minister says he wants to get rid of it. The shadow Secretary of State said today that he supports it. Who speaks for Labour?

[Hywel Williams]

I remain baffled—that is all I can say. Irrespective of Labour party internal divisions and wrangling, Labour has said that greater financial powers should have been granted, but now it is possibly saying that they should not be. The Tories remain divided on the lockstep. The greater part of the group in the Assembly complains that income tax powers with the lockstep are unusable, but the other part supported the London party and was given the sack.

I referred to the referendum when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) was in his place. The formulation of the question, if we ever have a referendum, will be extremely difficult, but rather than make the point myself, I shall but quote from the widely respected economist, Gerry Holtham, who told the Welsh Affairs Committee that Welsh politicians are being asked to

“fight a highly losable referendum. Tax is not popular, and, to be frank, neither are politicians at the present time. It is most unfair, but there it is. You are asking them to fight a losable referendum for a tax power they can’t use. It doesn’t look like a high-odds proposition to me.”

I tend to agree with him, particular given the possible complexity of the question, and the possible lack of a no campaign, which has been referred to.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the constitutional expert and Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, urged members of the Welsh Affairs Committee to seek to amend the legislation so that the lockstep is removed. He has said that the requirement for a referendum on the limited income tax powers is “ridiculous”. The Secretary of State, however, sung the praises of the lockstep, saying that it could be used to vary all rates and would put Wales at a competitive advantage. He has also noted his opposition to the devolution of long haul air passenger duty, as that would put Bristol airport at a competitive disadvantage. On the one hand, he argues against a competitive advantage, but, on the other, he refers to a competitive disadvantage. That does not seem particularly coherent to me, but there we are. In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the First Minister seemed to say that he wants Wales both to have a tax competition advantage and not to have one, as expertly adduced in a telling question asked by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). That incoherence shows that the cherry-picking of the Silk recommendations falls apart. It is a whole package.

On Labour’s new-found conversion to the need for reform of the Barnett formula, Plaid Cymru has been pointing out the consistent underfunding of Wales through the block grant for well over a decade, but successive Labour Secretaries of State have assured us that

“the Barnett formula serves Wales well”.

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) is not here, because those are his words. I know them by heart because I have heard them so often. His consistent standpoint is that the formula serves Wales well and we meddle with it at our peril. I will not intrude on Labour’s private grief and confusion, and the further inconsistency on Barnett that Labour’s leader in the Scottish Parliament seems to generate so effectively and so unconsciously. After 13 years in power when Labour could have sorted the formula, it now cries for fair funding—the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) says that income tax powers without fair funding is a “Tory trap”.

Wales should be fairly funded, as Plaid Cymru has long argued, because every day we lose around £1 million in additional funding. Those figures change, as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan has said—he would no doubt jump up and remind me were he in his place. We lose around £1 million every day, which we could spend on improving our health service, tackling the scandal of poverty or building new schools. For now, the Labour position is no fair funding and no income tax powers for Wales. We know why. That is Labour’s position because it fears that, if we address Barnett, its anti-independence campaign in Scotland will be finally scuppered. Oddly, therefore, the Labour party says in Wales that we must reform Barnett, but the very same unified and indivisible Labour party says in Scotland that we must not reform Barnett.

Meanwhile, the UK Government water down the Silk recommendations to conform to their fundamentally anti-devolutionist view that Wales cannot possibly have something that Scotland does not have. As we have seen this past week, events in Scotland may overtake them all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

Our argument is on a package of measures, but the Government have cherry-picked. Our ambition—I make no apology whatever for it—is to have both Silk I and II and even more implemented.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Secretary of State has cherry-picked the Silk commission’s recommendations on the ability to vary income tax. Because he has cherry-picked, why does he not devolve the lockstep without the referendum, and then have a referendum on removing the lockstep? That would be a practical way of moving forward, and of preserving the Silk commission proposals and recommendations.

[Hywel Williams]

That might be a way forward, but I have no idea how we would formulate a coherent question on the lockstep, as I have said. We should work towards all parties committing to a tax-sharing model in their 2015 manifestos, so that that could be achieved without the need for a costly referendum. Then in the future we could possibly have a referendum on the power to vary income tax, along with the wider powers expected as part of Silk II.

Plaid Cymru believes that constitutional change should not happen simply for its own sake, but because it represents the means to create a better society in Wales—more prosperous, more just, more equal and more democratic. That is our positive case. The financial powers recommended in the first report by the Silk commission represent some of the means to achieving that. They empower, but with them comes responsibility—a responsibility that Plaid Cymru would welcome.

Most of the debate has been focused on Wales. As a nationalist, I am pleased to quote an English Member—the hon. Member for Nottingham North again. He said:

“I start from the premise that the UK is the most massively over-centralised of all the western democracies and I find that deeply unhealthy.”

That point is about England and devolution all round—if I may use that 19th century phrase. He continued:

“I welcome this Bill very strongly because it is a step, not a leap—it is a step in the right direction.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Williams]

I do agree with that. I should, perhaps, make it clear that I was warning about referendum fatigue in the future. I have signed up to the Silk package and he has made that recommendation very clearly, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We must be very mindful of that fatigue in the future, however.

The hon. Member for Islwyn talked about the Blackwood high street survey that he unofficially—or maybe officially—makes when he is back in his constituency. He said that nobody raises these issues. I would just say that there is a case to be made in respect of our business community. People come to talk to me about business rates and the lack of clarity on responsibility over business rates, and there is a case for fully devolving them to the National Assembly. Over the past nine years I have dealt with many cases involving this subject. I can think of many constituents who have come to me struggling with issues about where responsibility lies. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that decisions will, because of this Bill, be made closer to Wales and that rates can be more responsive to the needs of Welsh businesses.

The Federation of Small Businesses in Wales agrees that businesses in Wales are facing the most onerous business rates of any constituent nation of the UK. We do not have many options available to us, such as using different multipliers for different-sized firms, and it hits our small businesses hard. Small businesses are the backbone of the Welsh, and particularly the Ceredigion, economy.

The Select Committee addressed that issue. Now that the Government have made their position on it clear, I would like to know how they intend to take forward their policy on devolving business rates completely. We need a clear settlement of business rates, which gives politicians the incentive to be creative on business rate policy and to be accountable for it.

I am also pleased about the Government’s views on the full devolution of stamp duty and landfill tax. It is true that those taxes are not massive generators of revenue; they generate about £200 million a year out of an overall budget of £15 billion, which is 0.3%. However, I welcome the fact that stamp duty and landfill tax could be used to encourage inward investment and business generation in Wales, providing a much needed boost to the economy.

Moving on to the key issue of borrowing powers, the Select Committee urged in our pre-legislative scrutiny report that by the time of the publication of the Bill the Government should have set out how they decided the limits of the £500 million current account and the £500 million for capital account borrowing. That was an incredibly worthwhile report, and I think that the Government should acknowledge that there is a need for pre-legislative scrutiny of all Bills of this nature. Comparing the lobbying and transparency Bill with this Bill, the work we have undertaken on the Select Committee will serve the process very well. I remember that the Welsh Liberal Democrat leader, Kirsty Williams, came before the Select Committee and made the comparison between the settlement for Scotland and the settlement for Wales.

We also talked about, and sought clarification on, the issue of bonds, and I am encouraged that the Government seem willing to consider further whether it might be appropriate for the Welsh Government to issue bonds alongside the other measures.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is reading out a range of measures included in the Bill, which were included in Silk. One measure that was in Silk that was not included in the Bill is the devolution of airport duty tax. How disappointed is he that that has not been included, especially considering that our airport is now owned by the people of Wales?

[Mr Williams]

I know the hon. Gentleman has worked vigorously on this issue. I think that argument is very much in flux. I think there is some way for the hon. Gentleman to convince us that that needs to be included, although I appreciate what he says about Silk being clear on that and the Government having taken a different view.

Many local bodies can issue bonds, such as local housing associations, and, to reference Scotland again, the Scotland Act 2012 allows for the UK Government to devolve bond-issuing powers without any further primary legislation. I believe that there should be parity.

On the subject of borrowing, above all else I think it would be very strange if a national Parliament did not have the borrowing powers enjoyed by the most menial of local authorities. The capacity to do that is important, but important though the question of borrowing is—in particular for the work that needs to be undertaken around Newport and the M4—we should not kid ourselves that borrowing is the sole panacea that will lead to stimulation of the economy. Borrowing ultimately means paying back, with interest. Successful borrowing will be dependent on the competence of the Government doing the borrowing, and it will not solve all the problems.

As I said earlier, we should be striving for a reserved powers model for Wales, rather than facing the spectre of holding a referendum each time a section of policy is handed down from Westminster on a piecemeal basis. That is not to understate the huge strides forward that we have made in the Bill, however. I commend the Secretary of State and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) for everything they have done to ensure that this issue has been pursued to this point. For a Liberal in Government, this represents a proud moment. There will be an even prouder moment when we have the opportunity to put the Bill on to the statute book.

As I have said, the work of Silk has been a consensual process, with parties from all sides working towards an effective and beneficial devolution process for Wales. I sincerely hope—although I am not totally hopeful—that as we all play our part in passing the Bill through Parliament, the level of consensus that we achieved at the beginning of the process will be resurrected. I do not know what the weather was like in Llandudno at the weekend—it was sunny and clear on the west Wales coast—but it strikes me that a haze might have descended on the town. There is clarity on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and clarity among our Friends on the nationalist Benches, but I have to say that there is deep fog on the other side.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. When this matter was last discussed in the Welsh Grand Committee, I was the Chair of the Committee, so I had to remain impartial. I listened to a lot of the arguments, however, and this is my opportunity to express my views on the Bill and the devolution settlement.

I am a proud devolutionist, and I am proud of my party’s record on devolution. That process did not begin with the setting up of the National Assembly for Wales. One of my predecessors, the late Cledwyn Hughes, was one of the architects of devolution. He was the second Secretary of State for Wales after Jim Griffiths, but before Labour came into Government in 1964 he worked in opposition to establish the first Welsh Office and to devolve powers and responsibilities. Democratic devolution then came into being with the setting up of the National Assembly.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), and I agree with a lot of what he said. He asked about the weather in Llandudno. It has not been widely reported that unity broke out among members of the Labour party in Llandudno. Whether he perceived clarity or not, we certainly had an excellent conference, with unified speeches from the leader of the Labour party in Wales—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) seems to disagree with me on that. I do not think he was there, although I am sure he takes a great deal of interest in the matter.

At our conference, we saw a First Minister and a future Prime Minister agreeing on huge policy issues, including reserved powers. That was radical, and in the tradition of Labour pro-devolutionism. It was an excellent conference, and coming after the Plaid Cymru conference, it is not difficult to compare a good one with a car crash. We heard that Plaid Cymru members had fallen out over issues such as what constituted Welshness. By contrast, we were talking about the economy and the constitutional measures that a Labour Government would introduce, so if the hon. Member for Ceredigion wants reserved powers, I suggest that he tell the good people of Ceredigion to vote Labour. A Labour Government would deliver that. We would deliver on our promise, just as we delivered on our promise to establish a National Assembly for Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales and I go back a long way politically. When we were debating the setting up of the National Assembly for Wales, we were on different sides of the argument, and I remember that we were on a panel with Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas. Of the three of us, only two agreed with devolution; the third did not. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has now progressed in the right direction, however.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the First Minister now supports the lockstep proposals of the UK Government, which the shadow Secretary of State advocated earlier? That is not what the First Minister has been telling the people of Wales for the past three or four months.

[Albert Owen]

The shadow Secretary of State set out the Labour party’s position in Llandudno on Sunday, and that is the position that we will proudly put to the electorate in a forthcoming election. I understand that Plaid Cymru does not support devolution per se; it supports it as a vehicle for independence. That is the difference between us. Yes, we have grown-up conversations in Wales, but the people of Wales elect more Labour representatives than Plaid Cymru representatives. Plaid Cymru is the “party of Wales” in name only. Yes, the Labour party has differences of opinion within it—any modern democratic party does—but we now have a clear position, following our conference, and I hope that we will go on to get a majority Government in this place so that we can change the laws to best reflect the views of the people of Wales.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) to an extent. Whether we like it or not, the people of Wales are not that interested in Silk; they are not that interested in constitutional issues. I and many others have supported devolution for many years, but I understand that not everyone is interested in it. Politics is the art of the possible. I would have liked an Assembly to be established in 1979, but the proposal was defeated convincingly by the people of Wales. I would have liked to see a stronger Assembly in 1997, but I was far more pragmatic and mature by then, and I realised that we pro-devolutionists needed to compromise in order to get the measure through.

I do not accept what the hon. Member for Ceredigion said about referendum fatigue. It is fundamentally important, when we are proposing major constitutional changes such as the setting up of new bodies in Scotland, Wales and other parts, including London, that we should have a referendum. Equally, it is right to hold a referendum when we are proposing to give more law-making powers to the National Assembly for Wales. We should also have one to decide the changes on taxation. I would have liked to see those powers established in 1997, but I know that we would have lost the referendum if we had proposed them at the time.

[Albert Owen]

I tried to answer that question earlier when I said that a referendum should be held when we are proposing a huge political or constitutional change. These taxation measures constitute such a change, as did the devolution of law-making powers and the setting up of the Assembly itself. When it comes to significant constitutional changes, I believe in trusting the people. I did disagree with the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) when he said, “We’ll just take the recommendations of a commission.” We are a democratic body; we are elected Members of Parliament; we represent people and communities, and we are here to represent their views. Again, I think Plaid Cymru has been caught out slightly, because it is saying, “We want all the bits of the Silk commission, but we do not want the referendum.” Either you want it all or you do not want it all—it is pretty simple.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Surely the powers cannot be used on the lockstep. That is Labour’s position: those bands cannot be varied because of the lockstep. The referendum should therefore be on the need to remove the lockstep to allow the bands to be varied. Surely that should be the basis of the referendum; it should not be a referendum on devolving the lockstep.

[Albert Owen]

That is the hon. Gentleman’s position. I have made my position clear: when there are major changes on taxation, there should be a referendum. I am therefore supporting that measure in the Bill. We would lose most of the people of Carmarthen and Ynys Môn if we started talking about the lockstep. The serious problem we have is that when we eventually go to the people of Wales on a taxation referendum, we have to boil it down—[Interruption.] If he stops chuntering from a sedentary position, I will try to give an answer on a simple question that we understand in the first place. The beauty of a referendum is that we need to boil things down. The question as it is framed now would not be easy, which is what we have to work towards. That is where I am coming from on this issue.

It is very logical that the Bill proposes borrowing powers for the National Assembly for Wales. The hon. Member for Ceredigion talked about the abilities of community councils and town councils to borrow in a way that the Assembly cannot, so this is a natural progression. Many things such as stamp duty and landfill tax can produce the revenue streams to help with that borrowing. It is eminently sensible that that happens.

I repeat that we need to consult the people of Wales and have a referendum on the income tax issues in the Bill, so I support that approach. Not having those things would be out of sync with what we have done in the past, when we set up the Assembly and when we had a referendum on increasing its law-making powers. I supported both those referendums and I would support this one, too, but we have to get it right. I am as confused as anybody who has spoken in this debate about exactly what we are going to be telling the people of Wales. I know this is only a Second Reading and it is right that we debate these issues, but in Committee—that is the place to do it—we shall deal with the nitty-gritty of what the taxation actually means. The figures produced in the explanatory notes and in the Government’s various Command Papers are not easy to digest, so we need to have that scrutiny, which this House of Commons does best, before we finalise things.

There has been much debate about the position outlined by my Front-Bench team, and on that I agree slightly with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards); those details need fleshing out just as much as any others. The purpose of parliamentary democracy is to have that debate and that parliamentary scrutiny, so that is the way we need to move forward. I have been consistent on the referendums issue, and I believe we must have a referendum if we are to move to being able to vary income tax powers or whatever the end result is of this Bill going through both Houses of Parliament.

I wish to discuss the electoral arrangements, as I am slightly confused as to why these provisions have been bolted on to this financial measure, other than to suit a deal done between the coalition parties and Plaid Cymru to try to get the Bill through. We have heard about the Government of Wales Acts. I supported doing away with the dual candidacy because I thought it was unfair and undemocratic that a person who stands for election in a seat and loses, often comfortably, can then arrive in that democratic institution through another means—that is fundamentally wrong.

When we had a debate in this House some time ago—I cannot cite the Hansard reference—the Under-Secretary told us about the consultation exercise, when people were in favour of keeping the ban on dual mandates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. Perhaps I will move on then. The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted road bridges to be built with money raised from the Severn road bridge; again, we wonder quite where he is going with that one.

Returning to the Bill, the hon. Gentleman raised valid points about the devolution of stamp duty and land being divided, and referred to confusion between people with certain postcodes whereby, for example, somebody with a Newport postcode ends up, in effect, being put in Wales when in fact they are in England. He also mentioned the complexities of payroll for small businesses in the event of devolution of income tax. I think he is really saying that there needs to be a very thorough impact assessment on all these issues, and we would certainly call for that.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) emphasised the benefits of holding elections on separate days to avoid confusion, although not all Members agreed. He reiterated his support for the reserved powers model of devolution whereby the assumption should be that the National Assembly for Wales has powers in the devolved areas of responsibility unless otherwise specified.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said that it is difficult to find anybody in his patch who is interested in more devolution, so perhaps he spends more time in South Pembrokeshire than in west Carmarthenshire. He agreed with the hon. Member for Monmouth about devolution creep. He also noted his disagreement with the academics who are calling for more Assembly Members.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) found himself agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—that must be a first—on the idea that if anyone changes the term of a Government, it is always to increase it rather than decrease it, and he was sceptical about the need for an increase to five years.

The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), speaking on behalf of Plaid Cymru, expressed severe disappointment that the Bill did not fully reflect the Silk commission recommendations. He described the thorough scrutiny of the draft Bill by the Welsh Affairs Committee and explained the potential difficulties in enthusing the electorate about a referendum on tax. He mentioned the Barnett formula and the need for funding reform and told us that Plaid Cymru would table an amendment to allow for devolution of income tax without a referendum.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) reminded us that he is a strong supporter of localism and firmly believes that decisions made should be linked with any money raised. He wants to see a positive impact in terms of working together for a referendum. He compared the very thorough scrutiny of the draft Bill with the complete lack of scrutiny of the transparency of lobbying Bill before it came to this House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) talked about borrowing and expressed concern about the unfairness to Wales in contrast with Scotland, where it is calculated as 10% of capital budget rather than being contingent on the devolution of taxes.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) spoke very eloquently about banning dual candidacy, quoting Lord Richard’s evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. He reminded the House of the very considerable, bare-faced abuse of the list system and quoted the leaked memorandum from Leanne Wood, the leader of Plaid Cymru, in which she gives explicit instructions to her party’s list Assembly Members to direct their time and resources—paid for by the taxpayer, Mr Deputy Speaker—to Plaid Cymru’s target seats. He also emphasised the need for shared risk on taxation and making sure that Wales does not in any way miss out if income tax powers are devolved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) expressed disappointment that the Bill falls short of fully reflecting what was in the Silk commission report. He also gave contemporary examples of how the list system is being abused, with list Members neglecting much of their area in order to focus almost exclusively on one part of it, with a view to standing for that constituency—exactly following the advice of the Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood, to ignore constituents’ problems and focus solely on what will bring electoral advantage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) reminded us that people have a lot of concerns, and do not have only constitutional issues on their minds. Again, he was concerned about the large number of people living within easy commuting distance of the border and the effects that any change in tax rates could have on either side of the border. He called for a thorough impact assessment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is a fervent devolutionist but is not for devolution as a route to independence, said it was vital to work with people and to have a referendum on all important decisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) referred to the current dispute about railway funding, saying that it was a good example of his worries that weasel words might mean giving with one hand but taking away with the other. He also said that we should look carefully at what exactly the intentions behind the Bill are.

I turn now to some of the more mundane issues dealt with by the Bill. We very much welcome the devolution of the land taxes—stamp duty and landfill tax. They will provide an independent income stream against which the Welsh Government can borrow. We hope that the devolution of those taxes can take place as soon as possible and that the process will not be subject to any unnecessary delays. We understand the logic of the time scale but we urge that it should not be allowed to slip.

We welcome the borrowing powers that the Bill will legislate for, not least because this Tory-led Government have cut the Welsh budget by 10% over the course of this Parliament and have reduced the Welsh Government’s capital budget by nearly a third. Borrowing powers will enable the Welsh Government to invest in vital infrastructure projects to help boost economic development.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Labour party continually attack the UK Government—and rightly so—for their huge cuts to capital expenditure in Wales, but the Government are following the exact budget lines set by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer before the 2010 election. The Labour party set a path to cut capital budgets in Wales by 40%. That is what the UK Government have delivered.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Opposition have very different priorities from the Government in the way that we deal with budgets and decide what our priorities are. Quite frankly, I think that he needs to do a bit more homework before he begins to make these suggestions.

I turn now to income tax. The Opposition do not accept that there is no accountability without the devolution of income tax. The National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government are accountable through elections, and Welsh Ministers are subject to the usual scrutiny procedures. Let us look at councils: more of a council’s budget comes through the block grant than from council tax, but nobody says that councils cannot borrow and that council borrowing has to be contingent on further devolution of some income tax powers.

None the less, we accept that the Welsh Government are slightly anomalous in not having the power to raise revenue. The devolution of a number of minor taxes will rectify that anomaly. It should be noted that in their evidence to the Silk commission the Welsh Labour Government did not actually seek the power to vary income tax. However, since the publication of the Silk commission report we have said that we support the recommendation to give Wales the power partially to vary income tax, contingent on a triple lock. That consists of fair funding, agreed by the Welsh and UK Governments; the power being subject to a referendum; and the power being in the long-term interests of Wales—that is to say that it should tested during a period of assignment.

We would like the Secretary of State to give further details on the period of assignment and to provide reassurances about the ability of HMRC to monitor a Welsh rate of income tax. We believe that further examination is needed of the impact of tax competition arising from different rates of income tax on either side of the border. We want to ensure that that looks at the behavioural aspects of what might happen if income tax rates vary on either side of the border.

Turning to the constitutional issues, we believe that the question of five-year terms is a matter for the Assembly. It may not be practical to table an amendment to that effect, but we want to put on record our belief that it should be something for the Assembly to decide.

On double-jobbing, we are very clear that we do not think that an individual should be an MP and an AM at the same time. It is not practical or fair to the electorate and we certainly support the ban in the Bill.

A number of my hon. Friends have referred to dual candidacy and I want to focus on one aspect of it, namely that the impact assessment notes that more people find it confusing and dislike it than those who favour it, and that smaller parties need the system because they are struggling to find candidates. It is pathetic that some of the smaller parties are finding it difficult to find candidates of the right quality. They should be asking themselves why it is that they cannot find anyone. Is the Liberal Democrats’ problem that no young person wants to knock on doors and explain why the Liberal Democrats propped up the Tories to put up student fees to £9,000 in England while in Wales the Labour Welsh Government pegged fees at £3,500? I cannot see any young person wanting to stand for the Lib Dems. Will young people want to stand for Plaid Cymru when they are worried that they might be told, “If you haven’t got two parents who were born in Wales, you can’t represent Wales”?

[Nia Griffith]

Well, that is the sort of thing we have heard Plaid Cymru say about whether the captain of the Welsh rugby team should be captain or not. [Interruption.] Plaid Cymru Members can shout and protest all they like, but that is what they said only three weeks ago.

[Jonathan Edwards]

A smear!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) need to calm down a little. In fairness, everybody has been able to put their point of view. I am sorry they do not accept what the shadow Minister is saying, but they cannot shout from the Benches in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

I have been very generous with my time, and I am not giving way again.

The Bill provides the Welsh Government with the means to take active steps to improve the lives of hard-working people in Wales. It will allow the Welsh Government to tailor devolved taxes to best fit the specific needs of Wales; it will make them accountable for some of the money they raise, not just the money they spend; and it will give them the tools to grow the Welsh economy. It also provides them with the means to make much needed investment in critical infrastructure in Wales and, if they choose, to call a referendum to devolve a portion of income tax. It is a Bill I am pleased to commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Wales Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Wales Bill:

Committal

The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.

(3) The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.

(4) The Proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

[Jonathan Edwards]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you were not here at the time, but the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made an unjustified and improper comment about me and refused to take an intervention during her winding-up speech. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to make such a comment? What advice could you give me about securing a withdrawal and what advice would you give the hon. Lady?

[Mr Speaker]

Whatever my capacities, it is very difficult for me to reach a conclusion about a matter to which I was not privy. As the hon. Gentleman sagely observed at the start of his attempted point of order, I was not myself present in the Chamber, so I am not party to the facts. If I were a cynical soul, I would imagine that he was seeking to continue the debate.

[Jonathan Edwards]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman assures me, with an air of wide-eyed innocence, that he has no such motivation. I simply counsel him, off the top of my head, that this is not a matter for the Chair—not, at any rate, as things stand—but that he, as a diligent and indefatigable Member, with great versatility, will be aware of the devices that are available to him to pursue this matter to a satisfactory conclusion, but almost certainly not now.