Wales Bill

David Jones Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

I am grateful to the Committee for its patience in listening to my remarks on a large number of amendments. For the ones relating to Ofwat, we suggest that the changes are necessary so that Ofwat is fully accountable to the National Assembly and Welsh Ministers for these functions exercisable in relation to Wales. They represent another step forward for devolution and I will be grateful if the Government and the Committee give the proposals serious consideration.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I will speak briefly to amendment 161 in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies). It would amend schedule 1 to the Bill by reserving the setting of speed limits in Wales and the design of road and traffic signs. The whole purpose of devolution should be to make life not more difficult but easier. We will be debating a great many practical amendments to the Bill this evening and this is one where the practical purpose of devolution would be better served by reserving such competences.

Dealing first with speed limits, I strongly suggest that it would be highly counterproductive for speed limits to differ between England and Wales because the road systems of England and Wales are closely integrated. Every day, many thousands of commuters travel backwards and forwards across the border. At certain times of year, such as holiday periods, there are considerable numbers of visitors from other parts of the United Kingdom and the continent of Europe. Such people are not confined to the principal arterial routes of the M4 and the A55, because several other important routes—going both east to west and north to south—cross the border. I am particularly thinking of the A483, the principal route between Manchester and Swansea that crosses and re-crosses the border at several points, and the A490, another well-known border route. To have different national speed limits at distances of possibly every two or three miles would be at the very least confusing and at the very worst positively dangerous.

The context of England and Wales is different from the context of England and Scotland because the integration of the road network between England and Wales is far closer. Given the practicalities, it makes no sense whatsoever to devolve the setting of speed limits to Cardiff.

[Hywel Williams]

I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with considerable interest. Is he saying that motorists are unable to cope with speed limit changes that are signalled by appropriate signs? I know of a stretch of road in my constituency where the limit goes from 40 mph to 30 mph to 20 mph and then back to 30 mph and then 40 mph over a distance of about a mile.

[Mr Jones]

I think it is fair to say exactly that; the hon. Gentleman will remember the former chief constable of North Wales who generated substantial funds out of motorists’ inattention to speed limits. My point is not so much about local speed limits but about national speed limits. It is far more sensible if the national speed limit is set by the Department for Transport in London—if necessary, in consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government. Given that there is such a closely integrated main transport road network between the two nations, it makes no sense to have differential speed limits.

The second point I wish to make is about road signs and I do so principally on the same grounds; as we have such a closely integrated road network, there is the potential to cause considerable difficulty if the Welsh Government were to decide, for whatever reason, completely to redesign road signs. Again, that would be not only confusing, but positively dangerous. The competence for the design of road signs should remain with the DfT in London, although there should be consultation with the Welsh Government.

[Hywel Williams]

Is the right hon. Gentleman’s contention based on any research? I recall, and so will he, the extensive debate in Wales about having Welsh language road signs or bilingual signs. Research was done on various aspects of that, by the Road Research Laboratory, the AA and various people, and they predicted all kinds of doom should we have bilingual signs. Can he point us to any similar research on road signs or differential speed limits?

[Mr Jones]

I have no objection whatever to bilingual road signs—they should be positively encouraged. This is not so much about the language as about the design of the signage. Most of our road signs follow standard European norms, although they may not in the future. If we are to have consistency and avoid danger to motorists, we should have consistency in the design of road signage.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

My constituency contains roads that traverse both England and Wales. What a pity it would be if our gorgeous countryside was to be littered with even more road signs, up and down those roads, up and down Wales, and up and down the Marches. What a great shame it would be for the visitors who come to Wales for that wonderful experience.

[Mr Jones]

I am sure we could have fewer signs, although we might have more. My concern is that they should not be so different as to cause accidents on the part of motorists wondering what the heck a sign meant as they passed it. On practicality, there is not a persuasive case being made here; I never really understood the case for the devolution of road signs.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Is the far more distracting and dangerous thing in country fields not all these Tory posters we get at election time? They cause far greater danger and distraction to motorists than any road signs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I have never received anything but praise for Conservative signage, and I received even more praise for the vote leave signs that were notable by their presence throughout Wales.

This is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I would be grateful to hear from Ministers the rationale for these two proposals. Let me say again that at the very least they are confusing and at the very worst they have the potential to be positively dangerous.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I must take this opportunity to congratulate the Welsh team on giving us the brightest, most joyful memories of the past few weeks—it is safe to say that.

I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues. They seek to amend schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and, thus, relate to clause 3 of this Bill, which deals with the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. The vast majority of our amendments in this group seek to omit certain reservations from that schedule. The amendments are intended in some cases to restore competence in areas that are already devolved. In others, they are intended to devolve competence to the Assembly in areas that are devolved to Scotland. If the Government are not prepared to give the Welsh Assembly parity with the Scottish Parliament in these areas, we would ask for specific reasons to be given in each instance. Both the Welsh Affairs Committee in this place and the National Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee have written reports on the draft Wales Bill, with both calling on the UK Government to provide individual justifications for each of the reservations now contained in schedule 7A. As such, it is a great disappointment to my colleagues and I that the Government have not seen fit to provide us with these justifications. I invite the Secretary of State to explain why the Government have not been forthcoming in this instance. If valid justifications cannot be provided, the Government should amend the schedule so as to omit those areas outlined in our amendments.

Plaid Cymru has not been alone in saying—over many years—that the National Assembly should move to a reserved powers model. Indeed, the independent, cross-party Silk commission made just such a recommendation. Legal experts and much of civil society in Wales, recognise that adopting a reserved powers model should, in theory, provide greater legal clarity and workability. The idea of moving towards a reserved powers model has also been taken in Wales to symbolise a shift in Westminster’s attitude towards the Assembly, because it was assumed to be synonymous with a maturing of relations between the two institutions. Rather than having to justify devolving an area of competence, Westminster would be compelled to justify reserving an area of law; again, that should have represented a significant attitudinal shift, and a recognition of greater parity. The sheer length of the list of reserved areas in schedule 1 has made a mockery of that notion.

It should therefore have come as no surprise to the Wales Office that the original draft Wales Bill was met with such dismay by the Welsh Assembly and by civil society in our nation. The dismayingly long list of reservations, and the way in which the Bill went so far in some cases as to curtail powers already devolved, would fundamentally undermine the Assembly’s competence. It would do the opposite of what was, presumably, intended. Although we are grateful that the previous Secretary of State announced a pause in introducing the legislation, we still believe that schedule 7A shows a paucity of ambition for Wales and her legislature, and that is why we have drafted the amendments in this grouping.

Amendments 83, 86, 110 and 111 should be considered together, as they seek to devolve aspects of the justice system to the Assembly: the legal profession and legal services are dealt with in amendment 110; crime, public order and policing are dealt with in amendment 83; the rehabilitation of offenders is dealt with in amendment 86; and prisons and offender management are dealt with in amendment 111. As has been pointed out in this House on many occasions, and as was championed by my predecessor, Elfyn Llwyd, Wales is the only legislature that has no separate or distinct legal jurisdiction of its own. The matter of a separate legal jurisdiction was debated last week, so I will not repeat my arguments. Although I accept that the Tories fundamentally disagree with the need for a separate jurisdiction, I remain somewhat confused by the position of the official Opposition, who said last week that they supported it but abstained because the Government do not support it. If the official Opposition can only vote in favour of measures that are supported by the Government, they are not well fitted to being the official Opposition. However, given that our amendment was defeated last week, we will use the Report stage of the Bill to bring forward proposals on a distinct, rather than separate, jurisdiction. I hope that the House will be more open to working with us when that time comes.

As is well known, the Silk commission recommended the devolution of policing and related areas of community safety and crime prevention, and my party is resolute in our standpoint that Wales, like the other nations of the United Kingdom, should have responsibility for its police forces.

We are presenting amendment 83 at a time when it is being proposed that policing is devolved to English city regions—Manchester and Liverpool, for example. If the policing of these cities can be held to account in a devolved landscape, why not the policing of Wales?

--- Later in debate ---

and the subject matter of the Summer Time Act 1972, as if there was ever a call to change those things. Section N4 also refers to bank holidays. The Committee may or may not recall—probably not; attendance was not great on St David’s day this year—that I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to devolve responsibility for bank holidays to the National Assembly. I have probably exchanged views with most Members on this subject, not least the Under-Secretary during a Westminster Hall debate some time ago. There are different views about this that will lead to a spirited debate, but the essential principle is that the designation of St David’s day as a bank holiday should be a matter not for us here, but for our colleagues in the Assembly. We now, unfortunately, have five parties in the National Assembly, but when there were four—the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, Labour, and Plaid Cymru—all endorsed the call for the Assembly to have that power.

[Mr David Jones]

As a matter of pure interest, which of the current bank holidays would the hon. Gentleman propose to dispense with in order to create one on St David’s day?

[Mr Williams]

I remember the right hon. Gentleman making that point in a previous Westminster Hall debate. I am not going to make that judgment because it is for the National Assembly. When the Under-Secretary responded to my debate, he talked about a review, but regrettably its results were parked in the proverbial long grass and are now in a cul-de-sac. This is a matter not for me, the right hon. Gentleman or the rest of us sitting on these green Benches, but for colleagues and friends in the Cynulliad.

[Mr Jones]

I recall that on the previous occasion this was considered, any change to the bank holidays proved deeply unpopular with the tourist industry in Wales.

[Mr Williams]

Without digging into the depths of the argument, I have made the position clear. Let the tourist industry make its representations to Ministers in our Cynulliad in Cardiff, not here. Let us not sit here, viceroy-like, dictating to the National Assembly. We should let the Assembly have that discussion with the tourist operatives, with the responsible Minister engaged with them, and then it can make the decision. It is a decision not for the right hon. Gentleman and me, but for our friends in the Assembly. That is what devolution means.

I want briefly to talk about policing. Silk said that:

“policing and related areas of community safety and crime prevention should be devolved”.

I must describe—I do not know whether Chatham House rules applied to our discussions in Gwydyr House, but they probably did—the genuine shock and anguish that was felt when we reported back on this matter to our National Assembly colleagues. Two of us from each party were sitting in an office somewhere in this House that I had never been to where big board meetings happen. There was shock and dismay that matters of youth justice were not, as recommended by the Silk commission, followed through in the St David’s day document. I understand how the Government have reached this position, and how the process was set in train when they talked to their colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, but that does not negate the case. Youth justice, of all issues, given its links between education, skills and health as part of rehabilitation, was not followed through in a devolutionary way.

I will now conclude my remarks, although such is the list of reservations that we could go on for hours. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the concerns that many of us still have about the list, slightly shortened though it is.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 161, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), is designed to move in the other direction by reserving speed limits and road traffic signs. The devolution of speed limits was a Silk commission recommendation, and there is consensus under the St David’s day process to proceed with its implementation. Traffic signs are devolved in Scotland following the Smith agreement and, given the wider competence of the Assembly and Welsh Ministers in relation to highways and transport matters, it is sensible to devolve responsibility for them to Wales.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Plaid Cymru has taken this Bill extremely seriously. We have tabled a great number of amendments. We shall press two amendments to a vote this evening and, with leave, new clause 2 if there is sufficient time. I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary’s response.

[Mr David Jones]

I shall speak briefly in support of amendments 158 to 160 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies). He has dealt very well with the thrust of the amendments and I do not wish to repeat what he has said. However, I would like to focus on proposed new subsection (4D) which provides:

“The Secretary of State may give a direction to Welsh Ministers that applications for consent for the construction or extension of stations generating electricity from wind which would have a capacity less than 51 megawatts must be determined by local planning authorities and must not be called in or determined by Welsh Ministers.”

As I mentioned on Second Reading, there have been unintended consequences of the Energy Act 2016, which is a development of UK Government policy that provides that all applications for onshore wind generating stations should no longer be governed by the Planning Act 2008, but should instead be determined by local planning authorities. This applies also in Wales, but as a consequence of Welsh legislation, the Welsh Government have designated all wind farm developments in Wales as so-called developments of national significance, which fall to be considered by the Welsh Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is right to insert this provision. We both come from parts of Wales where the development of wind farms has caused huge problems. They have been disproportionately scattered across rural Wales and there are large areas that almost literally have a turbine on every hillside. Local communities certainly want these applications to be determined at local level, and it is entirely right that the Welsh Government, having taken it upon themselves to adopt this power, should now have it taken away from them. The power should be returned to local authorities.

As I have suggested, this has been an example of the law of unintended consequences. I am absolutely sure that the Government did not expect that, as a consequence of the Energy Act 2016, all such applications would fall to be determined by the Welsh Government. That is what has happened, however, and local communities have been disfranchised. This proposal is therefore a sensible one, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give consideration to it. If he cannot accept it this evening, will he take it away and come back with another proposal on Report to address the concerns that I have outlined?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I rise to speak to new clauses 4, 5, 8 and 9. I also refer Members to my speech on new clauses 2 and 3 and income tax during our first day in Committee last week.

New clause 5 would devolve air passenger duty to Wales. In 2012, the Silk commission recommended the devolution of a block of financial powers, including air passenger duty, to the National Assembly. That was a carefully crafted package of measures. Those minor taxes were clearly listed as pressing, and the commission recommended that they be devolved in the next possible legislative vehicle, which happened to be the 2013 Finance Bill. For whatever reason, however, APD was missing from that Bill and a Plaid Cymru amendment that would have included it was defeated.

On the publication of its recommendations, the commission had cross-party and governmental support. However, four years on, I am disappointed that the Government have turned their back on the commission and its recommendations. They are instead simply cherry-picking the amendments that will be the least disruptive to the current devolution arrangement for Wales. In that period, we have had a Northern Ireland Act and two Scotland Acts through which APD was devolved to those countries and, needless to say, Labour and Tory MPs based in Wales supported those Acts. Wales is, once again, getting the short end of the stick when it comes to devolved taxation.

I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) is not in the Chamber. Although she is apparently oblivious to her party’s inability to support the devolution of APD twice in the previous Parliament, she has rightly stated:

“Air passenger duty has already been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and…to the Scottish Parliament, but despite this, the Budget did not propose that it be devolved to the Welsh Assembly.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 521.]

She asked for it to be devolved, and that is an unimpeachable argument—I agree with every word she said.

--- Later in debate ---

“APD is a punitive tax that only serves to hinder Cardiff Airport’s ability to continue on this journey of growth and we agree that it should be abolished at the earliest opportunity. We believe that neighbouring airports should work together and complement one another, growing and strengthening side by side for the greater good of a thriving aviation industry across the UK.”

[Mr David Jones]

Has the hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the impact that his proposals might have on north Wales’s local airports in Liverpool and Manchester?

[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.