Wales Bill
Debate between Stephen Doughty and David T C Davies(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
I wish to speak on clause 16 and the referendum on income tax powers. I preface my remarks by saying that I have always been an instinctive pro-devolutionist. I worked in the Assembly when it first began and I supported its establishment. I would go further than some aspects of the Bill in devolving powers and giving responsibilities to the Welsh Government. I support, as the First Minister has, a federal UK. I would like a constitutional convention and a written constitution that properly settles the duties and responsibilities of the respective Administrations across these islands. This is even more crucial in the aftermath of the EU referendum. I genuinely fear for the future of the UK at the moment. I have always considered myself a proud Welshman, but also proudly British and proudly European. I will continue to do so, but we have unleashed a whole series of very difficult questions in the aftermath of the vote that make our deliberations on the Bill all the more important.
David T. C. Davies
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the citizens of Switzerland and Norway are Europeans and may be proud to be European? They are just as European as anyone else in Europe, and he would be just as European as a Norwegian or a Swiss person is after Brexit takes place.
Stephen Doughty
I am not going to be taken down that rabbit hole. I want to concentrate on the details of the Bill. I make my point because, despite having those views and pro-devolutionary instincts in supporting the most of the Bill—as I said, I am even willing to go further—I have also always believed in applying two tests to proposals put before us.
First, whatever is proposed must deliver better outcomes for the people of Wales. It is absolutely crucial that we look at this in the context of our unique history. Our history is not the same as that of Scotland, our legal history is not the same as that of Scotland, and the nature of our polity and development is not the same as that of Scotland. There are distinct and unique things about Wales that we should consider that do not apply to Scotland. We always have to ask: is this the right solution? I apply that particularly to issues such as policing, the justice system and criminal jurisdiction. I am not saying that they should not be looked at in the future, but I believe in a practical test of whether they will deliver better outcomes. It is not just about sticking a dragon on something and saying it will be done better; this has to be approached in a very cold and hard-headed way.
Secondly, I have always believed in the consent of the Welsh people when making major constitutional change. I support very much the intent of amendment 11, which I will support if it is pressed to a Division. We have considered the fiscal framework for Wales before moving forward with any devolution of income tax powers. There is a fundamental principle at stake here. Clause 16 would remove the requirement for a referendum. We have had two referendums in this country, one in Wales and one in Scotland. In Scotland, the question related to the devolution of income tax powers. It was the second question in the Scottish referendum of 1997 and it passed by 63.48%. The Scottish people were asked that question and voted for it separately from the question on whether there should be a Scottish Parliament. In Wales, we had a referendum on 3 March 2011 on a much lesser question, which was whether the Assembly should be able to make laws on the areas for which it already has responsibility. I did not think we needed that referendum at all. It was obvious that Wales should have had primary law making powers—it should have had them from the beginning. I always thought it absurd, sitting there in the early days of the Assembly discussing odd details of secondary legislation, that we did not have that primary law making power, so I am glad we have moved in that direction in terms of the Assembly’s core competences.
Whether or not people agree with devolving income tax powers, the question is a very fundamental one that changes the nature of the settlement for the Assembly and the Welsh Government. The question should be put to the Welsh people. I think it would pass in the current context, despite what some people say. Many in Wales would want to see it pass, and it should be put to them. It is a matter of precedent: we have had the two previous referendums, but we are not getting one on this question. I cannot understand why. We are not giving the Welsh people a voice. Whatever side people were on in the referendum campaign, it was crucial that the British had their say on such a fundamental decision.
I think that clause 16 is a mistake, but I will support our amendment 11, which goes fundamentally to the question of getting a fair fiscal settlement for Wales.
Climate Change
Debate between Stephen Doughty and David T C Davies
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
No one has ever denied that carbon dioxide is a global warming gas. No one has ever denied that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere since we started industrialising. Not many people are bothering to deny the fact that there has been an increase in temperature of about 0.8 °C over the past 250 years, and although it is a bit more questionable than some would have it, there is no need to question it at the moment. It follows that CO2 emissions that are man-made have had some impact on temperatures. What does not follow is the argument that is so often put forward, which is that CO2 emitted by mankind has been completely responsible for the very minor increase in temperature that we have seen over the past 250 years. Nobody that I have met has ever, ever denied that the climate changes. I have met many people who are sceptical about the current policy and none of them has suggested that the climate does not change; the climate has always changed and it always will. The existence of glaciers is testament to the fact that the climate has always, and will always, change.
The climate has been changing over the past 2,000 years. It was warmer during the Roman period, a fact that is acknowledged in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent summary for policy makers. It said that it is warmer now than it has been for 1,400 years—as though 1,400 years is a long time. The problem is that, because we all live to be, hopefully, three score years and 10, we think of 70 years or 100 years as being a long time, but the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, and 100 years is the blink of an eye.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State goes to Paris, she will deploy the same sceptical mindset about some of the things she is told that she always deployed when we worked together on the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. I hope she will bear it in mind that it was warmer during the Roman period, cooler during the dark ages, and then warmer again during the medieval period. It then became much colder, and up until about 1800 we had what is called the little ice age when ice fairs were held outside Parliament on the Thames. It was at about that time that we started to industrialise. It was a coincidence that we industrialised at the same time as we came out of the little ice age, and it absolutely must follow that some of the temperature increase that has taken place—about 0.8 °C—must be due to the fact that the Earth was naturally warming up anyway, and the IPCC will not deny that.
David T. C. Davies
I am delighted to give way to Opposition Members who disagree with me, because, unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I am not afraid to have this argument.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman keeps quoting the IPCC, but does he not recognise that one of the IPCC’s recent reports said that 100% of the climate change—the warming—over the past 60 years was due to humans and that the IPCC was 95% convinced about the argument overall? The IPCC has been very clear on this point.
David T. C. Davies
Let me read out something for the hon. Gentleman. Under the title “Summary for policymakers” on page 17, fourth paragraph down, the IPCC says:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”
What that means in simple English is that slightly more than half of the increase that has taken place in the second half of the 20th century is down to man. The overall increase over the past 250 years is 0.8 °C, but in the second half of the 20th century, the increase was about 0.5 °C. What the IPCC is saying in this report is that slightly over half of that is likely to have been man-made.
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman can see the report for himself. We are talking about well under half of the total increase in temperature that has taken place.
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but that comes from the IPCC. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the shadow Secretary of State if she wants to correct me on something. Even the IPCC is not saying that the increase in temperature is a result of man-made carbon emissions. It is saying that some of it is, and that the overall amount is well under half. On the basis of that, we are going ahead with a set of policies that have caused massive increases in energy bills for home owners and businesses. I say to the right hon. Lady that, with all due respect, none of the Opposition Members will back her when the policies that she may sign up to come home to roost, as they will create higher energy prices for businesses such as Celsa, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It is absolutely outrageous that steel companies and other manufacturers are finding it difficult to manufacture in this country because they are paying so much more for electricity than their competitors in the rest of Europe.
The reality, of course, is that it costs—I listened with great interest to this discussion—roughly £95 per MWh to generate electricity from both nuclear and onshore wind, and £150 per MWh to do it from offshore wind, so it is very expensive. It costs about £50 to do it from gas and about £30 from coal. We can therefore be absolutely certain that the more we rely on renewable energy, the more we will have to pay for it. No politician from any party should run away from that. They should be willing to go out and make the argument for paying more if they think it is a good idea, but nobody is doing that. Nobody on either the Government or the Opposition Benches thinks it is a good idea to put up energy bills, so why on earth are we prepared to support policies that increase them?
If we are going to do that, we should make absolutely certain that it is not just the UK that will do so. We generate about 2% of the earth’s total man-made carbon dioxide emissions, so we will have no impact whatsoever on the temperature if we unilaterally decide to whack up taxes and start making people pay more money. If there is going to be an agreement, it absolutely has to be global.
What worries me is that, while a graph on which 1 cm represents 100 years may show a slight increase, the reality is that the earth has been around for so long that if we went back 100 million years, it would have to be represented by 10 km and that would show periods with more naturally created CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as greater and smaller temperatures. We would have to go back only 30 cm—about 1,300 years ago—to see the Younger Dryas, a climatic event that was never properly explained but which was entirely natural and during which there was a sudden drop in temperature by about 15 °C within the space of just a few decades.
Somebody cited Margaret Thatcher, a lady of whom I am always happy to call myself a fan. In her book “Statecraft”, in a chapter called “Hot Air and Global Warming”, she actually repudiated much of what she had written when she pointed out that people were getting quite hysterical about this. I think she was absolutely right and I urge the Secretary of State to be very cautious when she gets to Paris, and to remember that there is a difference between healthy scepticism and denial.