Jonathan Edwards
Main Page: Jonathan Edwards (Independent - Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)Department Debates - View all Jonathan Edwards's debates with the Wales Office
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman mentions Tryweryn, and it is of course 50 years since Gwynfor Evans won that famous by-election in Carmarthen in 1966. The major stimulus of that great victory that changed Welsh, and, arguably, UK, politics was, of course, the drowning of Tryweryn. Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be a fitting memorial to that great victory by Gwynfor Evans that this Bill finally contains the devolution of water resources to Wales?
Paul Flynn
I think that would be entirely appropriate. The hon. Gentleman reminds us of matters that were subjects of great passion at the time. I believe they did—as many points in history have—concentrate the feelings of those in Wales about their national identity and what was seen to be an injustice against the people of Wales. I remember the events vividly.
Jonathan Edwards
As always, my hon. Friend is making a compelling case, full of strong arguments. Does she agree that it is slightly ironic that a referendum has just been won by those arguing for the UK to leave the European Union, partly on the basis of democracy and sovereignty, yet here we are, debating a Wales Bill which, compared with the settlement for Scotland and Northern Ireland, seems to deny sovereignty and democracy to Wales?
Liz Saville Roberts
With the Bill we are moving ahead in small steps—inching forward, painfully. I await the time when we will move ahead in a way that grants sovereignty to the people of Wales.
Many of the amendments that I have discussed so far were recommended by the Silk commission, as I mentioned previously. Other amendments in the group include amendment 85, which would remove prostitution from the list of reserved powers; amendment 117, which would remove the reservation of knives; and amendment 109, which would remove the reservation of abortion, to bring Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. Again, I challenge the Secretary of State to stand up and tell us why he voted for Scotland to have those powers, but is now telling us in Wales that we cannot have equivalent powers.
Amendment 155 is distinct in that it seeks to clarify a reservation contained in schedule 7A, and not to omit it entirely. The amendment would clarify as a reserved matter “the Crown Prosecution Service”, rather than the broader term “prosecutors”, as currently drafted. This amendment is crucial, as the existing wording of the schedule could prohibit Assembly legislation from enabling devolved authorities, such as local authorities and Natural Resources Wales, to prosecute. I hope that the Government will take note of this distinction and amend the schedule accordingly.
Amendment 156 would remove the necessity test in relation to the law on reserved matters. The test of necessity is objectionable on grounds of clarity and workability, as it is capable of a number of different interpretations. One possible interpretation is extremely restrictive and would represent a reduction in the Assembly’s current competence. The difference between a “reserved matter” and the “law on reserved matters” is explained in paragraphs 409 to 411 and 413 and 414 of the explanatory notes to the Bill.
The notes give the example of an Assembly Bill which related entirely to planning, which is not a reserved matter, but which modified a provision of a UK Act concerning telecommunications. That modification might be within the Assembly’s competence, as its purpose might relate entirely to planning, and so it would meet the test set out in new section 108A(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, inserted by clause 3. However, by modifying a provision of a UK Act of Parliament, which concerned a reserved matter, it would modify the “law on reserved matters”. The Assembly should be able to do so in a purely ancillary way, without also having to show that the modification made has
“no greater effect…than is necessary”.
An equivalent to the Bill provision is contained in the Scotland Act 1998. However, in the context of the Scottish devolution settlement, it is much less restrictive, as the Scottish Parliament has competence over considerably greater fields, including, of course, justice matters, and the Scottish system of civil and criminal law. Therefore, what might appear to be wider latitude for the Assembly would in practice still amount to narrower competence than that of the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment 157 would remove the criminal law restriction in paragraph 4 of schedule 7B and replace it with a restriction which provides that the Assembly cannot modify criminal law unless that is for a purpose other than a reserved purpose. It reflects the Assembly’s current competence—that is, the criminal law is a silent subject, and the Assembly can modify the criminal law if it relates to a devolved subject, or if the modification is ancillary. The Assembly, therefore, could not modify the criminal law if it was for a reserved purpose, thus protecting the criminal law around the 200 or so reservations in the Bill. The amendment would also make it clear that the Assembly could not modify the criminal law for its own sake: there must be a devolved purpose behind the modification of the criminal law. It would align the criminal law restriction with the private law restriction in paragraph 3 of schedule 7B. This would provide consistency and clarity.
I have already spoken of my party’s dismay that the Bill threatens in places to dilute, rather than augment, the legislative competence of the Assembly. In this vein, a number of the amendments in this group seek to clarify the Assembly’s powers in relation to its internal functions, as well as its overall competence to legislate. Amendments 148 and 149 seek to restore the Assembly’s competence closer to its current level. Currently, the Assembly is able to affect, in a minor way, matters that are listed as exceptions from competence in schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Most of these exceptions have been converted into reservations in the proposed new settlement—for example, consumer protection. However, under the new settlement, the Assembly would have no competence to legislate in a way that touches on reserved matters at all.
The Assembly can currently legislate in relation to “silent subjects”—that is, topics that are not listed either as subjects of competence, or as exceptions from competence, in schedule 7 to GOWA. The Assembly can do so only where it is also legislating on a subject that is specifically devolved by schedule 7. Many of these silent subjects—for example, employment rights and duties—have been converted into reservations in the Bill. The amendment would restore the Assembly’s competence to affect those topics in a purely ancillary way. However, that ancillary competence would still be narrower than the Assembly’s present competence to legislate on “silent subjects” when that legislation also relates to expressly devolved subjects.
In an attempt to allow the aforementioned institution to have control and oversight over its law making, amendment 6 would give the Assembly the power to consolidate, in both English and Welsh, the statutes containing the current constitutional settlement affecting Wales. No matter what our position on empowering the Assembly, I am sure we can all agree that it is important, whatever settlement we have, that that settlement is easily understood. It is disappointing that this Bill does not consolidate all existing legislation, but the amendment would allow the National Assembly to do that, in the interests of clarity. It would not allow the National Assembly to go beyond current legislation and broaden its competence.
Amendments 34 to 37 would amend paragraph 7 of schedule 2, which sets out the sections of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which the Assembly will have competence to modify. Paragraph 7(2)(d) specifically refers to those sections of part 5 of the 2006 Act which are amendable without restriction. As it stands, this does not include the ability to amend sections 120(1) or 124(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which provide for “relevant persons”—otherwise known as “direct funded bodies”—which receive funding directly from the Welsh consolidated fund. That means, for example, the Welsh Government, the Assembly Commission, the Auditor General and the public services ombudsman for Wales.
Amendments 35 and 36 would allow the Assembly competence to add to, but not remove from, the list of “relevant persons”. It would allow it to enable a body that is independent of the Welsh Government also to be financially independent where that is deemed appropriate. Any use of such competence to add to the “relevant persons” would require an Act of the Assembly.
Paragraph 7 of schedule 2 provides that the remaining provisions of part 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 are amendable where the amendment is incidental to or consequential on a provision of an Act of the Assembly relating to budgetary procedures, and the Secretary of State consents to that amendment. I see no reason why the consent of the Secretary of State should be required to an amendment that will have no impact beyond the Assembly’s financial procedures, so amendment 37 removes that requirement.
On the remaining amendments in this group tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, as I have already said, the majority of these amendments highlight areas of competence that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet for some unstated reason are being reserved to Westminster in the case of Wales. No justification has been given for reserving those matters. Consequently, I shall list a number of amendments: 84, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 106 and 103. I give the amendment numbers for a reason. It feels like the Secretary of State is allowing Whitehall to pick and choose the powers it wants to hold on to. We argue strongly that he must draw up a list of reservations based on principles. These reservations make no practical sense and the absence of principle is obvious. They range from the reservation of dangerous dogs to hovercraft, sports grounds and health and safety. We need a reason why those areas should be reserved.
In addition, there are amendments 105, 107, 104, 112, 113 and 89, which is on Sunday trading and safeguards the long-standing tradition in Wales of protecting shop workers’ terms and conditions, and amendments 114 and 115. Over and above that, Plaid Cymru has long argued that Department for Work and Pensions functions should be devolved to the Assembly. Thus amendment 100 would devolve all working age benefits that are to be replaced by universal credit and any benefit that is introduced to replace universal credit. Amendments 101, 102, 108 and 99 all relate to those areas of DWP functions that we have long argued should be devolved.
Amendments 96, 61 to 63 and 69 deal with the newly created Welsh harbours of “reserved trust ports”. Once again, this creation has no justification. A port will now be devolved unless it has a turnover of above a certain threshold. Again, that is the case not for Scotland or Northern Ireland, but only for Wales. It is yet another example of Westminster holding on to as much power as possible while appearing to be offering significant devolution. Once again, I challenge the Secretary of State to tell us why this is necessary in Wales, when he voted to devolve full control to Scotland.
Amendment 2 is consequential on new clause 1, which seeks to devolve Executive and legislative competence of the Crown estate in Wales to the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales, as has been done in Scotland. New clause 7 would devolve general legislative competence in respect of agricultural, aquacultural and fisheries levies. Again, those are areas that Plaid Cymru has long argued should be devolved to the National Assembly.
Before I come to a close, I wish to note concerns expressed to me by the Welsh language commissioner regarding the Bill’s potential effect on the National Assembly’s powers to legislate in matters concerning the Welsh language. A possible effect of schedule 2 is that the National Assembly, should it wish to legislate for the Welsh language, would require the consent of the relevant UK Minister to confer, impose, modify or remove within that legislation the Welsh language functions of Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments and other reserved authorities. Under the current settlement, that ministerial consent is required only when legislating to impose Welsh language functions on Ministers of the Crown. The ministerial consent provisions of the Wales Bill in relation to the Welsh language would appear to be applicable to a wider range of persons than is currently the case, and would thus be more restrictive. I hope that that can be considered in the later stages of the Bill.
The amendments in this group should not be considered as mere separate, distinct “tweaks” to the Wales Bill. Rather, we present them as a collection of amendments, which, by their sheer number, make evident the many ways in which the current proposed legislation is deficient. No justification has been given by the Government as to why these many policy areas have been reserved, and no justification has been given as to why the Welsh Assembly should not be granted the same competence as the Scottish Parliament in these areas.
Alun Cairns
I will cover those points, but I have sought to underline the importance of the tests because they are so fundamental to the reserved powers model. Of course, the reservations will be equally fundamental. The hon. Lady mentioned a significant number of them. As I make progress, I will cover many of the points she made and invite her to intervene then.
Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by the main Opposition party, and Plaid Cymru’s amendments 148 and 149 seek to broaden the Assembly’s competence significantly by enabling it to legislate in relation to reserved matters so long as the provision is ancillary to a provision on a devolved matter. These amendments would drive a coach and horses through the key principle underpinning the new model, which is a clear boundary between what is devolved and what is reserved. They would give the Assembly the power to make unfettered changes to reserved matters such as the justice system, which we debated in detail last week, provided only that some connection to a devolved provision was established. What is more, they are simply not needed. We want to ensure that the Assembly can enforce its legislation and make it effective. We provide for this in paragraphs 1 and 2 of new schedule 7B by enabling the Assembly to modify the law on reserved matters. This is suitable to ensure that the Assembly’s devolved provisions can be enforced without compromising the principle of reserved matters.
I turn now to the proposed new schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act, which sets out the reserved matters, referred to in general in the legislation as the “reservations”. These matters must be seen through the prism of the purpose test. A reservation is a succinct description of the subject area covered. It includes reserved authorities carrying out functions relating to that subject and criminal offences relating to that subject.
The general reservations in part 1 of the new schedule reserve the fundamental tenets of the constitution: the Crown, the civil service, defence and the armed forces, the regulation of political parties, and foreign affairs. As a single legal jurisdiction operates in England and Wales, we also reserve matters such as courts and non-devolved tribunals, judges, and civil and criminal proceedings. However, we have made appropriate exceptions to these reservations to enable the Assembly to exercise devolved functions. For example, the Assembly can confer devolved functions on the courts or provide for appeals from devolved tribunals to reserved tribunals.
Amendment 6, tabled by Plaid Cymru, seeks to modify these core reservations by allowing the Assembly to consolidate the constitutional arrangements for Wales. It surely must be a fundamental principle that the UK’s constitutional arrangements, including Parliament’s authority to devolve its own powers, are reserved. We have a constitutional settlement for Wales, the Government of Wales Act 2006 as amended, and amendment 6 is simply not necessary.
Part 2 lists the specific reservations. We want there to be no doubt where the boundary of the Assembly’s legislative competence lies. The list is lengthy because it is quite specific in its reservations and provides exceptions to those reservations. Previously, in the draft, there were some broad headlines, but the current Bill is far more specific, which necessitates further detail on what is included.
Jonathan Edwards
During this afternoon’s debate, the Secretary of State has been challenged on many of the reservations listed in part 2. In the interests of transparency, and before we get to the remaining stages of the Bill, will he commit the Wales Office to publishing a document outlining why each reservation has been made?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Member is aware that I have an open style and am happy to maintain dialogue and work with all opposition parties, as well as with the Welsh Government, in seeking to come to an accommodation. However, hovercrafts, for example, have been highlighted a couple of times. That reservation relates to technical standards and is about a distinct class of transport, such as ships in relation to shipping and planes in relation to aviation. Therefore, although, on the face of it, one might ask what the purpose of a reservation is, very often there are technical issues well beyond that. I am happy to continue a dialogue in that respect, as we continue to do with the Welsh Government.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman will know that I am happy to continue open dialogues. As Secretary of State, that is the style I have sought to use, to build on that set by my predecessor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to continue working in such an open and constructive way.
Alun Cairns
I would like to make further progress, if I may.
A whole host of amendments have been tabled in relation to policing and justice. The St David’s day process found no consensus to devolve the criminal justice system in Wales. The Government gave a clear manifesto commitment that policing and criminal justice will remain reserved. In our first day in Committee last week, I made clear the Government’s commitment to maintain the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. Crime, public order and policing are inextricably linked to the criminal justice system. There already exists an All Wales Criminal Justice Board, which consults fully with the Welsh Government and extends to prison provision. The Welsh Government are also in regular dialogue with the National Offender Management Service about its functions.
Amendment 116, tabled by Plaid Cymru, and amendment 87, tabled by Labour, seek to remove the reservations for late-night entertainment and alcohol licensing respectively. There was much debate within this group surrounding this. The Government consider both subjects to be closely connected to policing and maintaining public order. Given that policing and criminal justice remain reserved matters, late-night entertainment and alcohol licensing should also be reserved under the principle that has been established.
Amendment 155, tabled by Plaid Cymru, seeks to reserve “the Crown Prosecution Service” rather than “prosecutors” in the general reservation on the single legal jurisdiction. There is no intention to prevent the Assembly from continuing to specify devolved prosecutors for devolved offences in the legislation. The reservation of prosecutors would not prevent the Assembly from legislating to, for example, make local authorities in Wales the prosecuting authority for particular devolved offences, as was highlighted by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). I agree, however, with the underlying policy intention of the amendment and will consider further, before Report, whether the reservation of prosecutors should be modified. I am happy to return to this at that stage.
Government amendments 53 to 58, tabled in my name, seek to put Wales in the same position as Scotland in respect of the reservations in C5, which reserves all prohibition and regulation of imports and exports in and out of the United Kingdom. It does, however, allow the Assembly to control movements of certain things, such as plants, animals, foods and fertilisers, for specified purposes. The amendments seek to put the Assembly in the same position as the Scottish Parliament by extending its competence to regulate movement of these things both within Wales and in and out of Wales.
Significant attention has been given to transport reservations, with a number of amendments being tabled by both Plaid Cymru and the Labour party. The transport reservations were subject to close scrutiny when the Bill was at a draft stage, and there is no basis on which to devolve railway services, coastguard services or aspects of road transport, as the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) proposes. It is not what the Silk commission recommended, and my focus has been on delivering powers for a purpose.
Mr David Jones
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.
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.
Alun Cairns
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s proposal on devolving corporation tax. How would Wales cope with the significant volatility of corporation tax income?
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful for that intervention because it provides a great insight into the Secretary of State’s thinking. If that is his argument on fiscal powers, he should align himself with the Labour party, which opposes Wales having income tax powers for exactly the same reason. This is about whether one believes that the Welsh Government can use such levers effectively to create jobs in our country. That intervention is indicative of the Secretary of State’s mindset.
Given that corporation tax is devolved in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Secretary of State will do his job, stand up for Wales and make it a devolved tax in Wales, as was recommended by the Silk commission’s report.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Alan, for calling me to speak in this hugely important debate. All Welsh Members recognise the Bill as an attempt to create a stable, long-lasting devolutionary settlement for Wales that provides financial accountability to the Welsh Government. I associate myself with many of the comments from both sides of the Committee, although I do not agree with everything that has been said.
I want to refer specifically to amendments 158 to 160, which have featured quite a lot in today’s debate. I have been inspired to speak in part by the contribution of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, in which he was positive about energy. There is real potential for Wales to become an energy giant. I have been to Dinorwig about three times and have been inspired by the history of what Wales has achieved in energy production. We have even had—the shadow Secretary of State will not agree with me on this subject—nuclear energy generation in Wales on a considerable scale. It has formed part of a real decarbonisation effort, which I have supported and which we may well carry on at Wylfa B. We have the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project and other such projects, and there is wonderful potential for Wales if they go ahead. At this stage, the issue is clearly one of whether they will become financially viable. There is no doubt that the tidal range is amazing, and I certainly hope that those schemes can be approved and that Wales can carry on its history of making a contribution to energy generation.
I am also inspired by those who tabled the amendments, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). The devolution of energy is a difficult issue for me, and I want to run through the reasons why. My concern is about onshore wind farms and the implications of onshore wind, particularly for my constituency. I am desperately keen to support the devolution process and keen that the Wales Bill be successful, particularly in relation to financial accountability. The Bill will enable the Assembly to become a Parliament and to grow up. However, the Welsh Government’s history when it comes to onshore wind causes huge problems, certainly in my constituency. They are landscape vandals—landscape philistines. That has been the general approach of the Welsh Government to onshore wind in my constituency. There are probably more wind turbines in Montgomeryshire than anywhere else in Wales.
Turning to the scale of what the Welsh Government want, they wanted another 500 turbines and a 40 km, 400 kV cable into Shropshire, which would have devastated my entire constituency. Powys County Council had to spend a huge amount of money simply to defend its constituency. The Ministers know what I am about to say, as they have heard me say it before. The only reason I can support this Bill is, ironically, that the Welsh Government have behaved in a centralising way when the UK Government devolved power to local authorities to decide on onshore wind farms. On the same day they devolved this to local authorities in Wales, the Welsh Government took that power back to themselves, like some old Soviet republic grabbing power to itself and away from the people. It was scandalous but the Welsh Government did that.