| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for assisting the House. What statutory functions, and therefore what budget, will the Secretary of State have after the transfer of functions to the assembly?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend might find the answer odd. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State will have the statutory functions that I currently exercise but which are not transferred to the assembly. That is the important point, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a clearer, written answer.
Responsibility for allocation of the £7 billion block grant will belong to the Secretary of State. It will be for the Secretary of State to determine what very small part of the grant remains for running the residual office of the Secretary of State, with the bulk of the grant being transferred to the assembly.
Mr. Denzil Davies:
I was intrigued by the phrase "non-statutory concordats". Will my right hon. Friend explain whether those concordats will be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, should one party to a concordat disagree with the other about its application?
Mr. Davies:
No, I do not envisage that the concordats will be subject to the courts. They will be agreements
The assembly will not have responsibility--the right hon. Member for Devizes will be disappointed to learn--for foreign affairs. Therefore, the concordat between the assembly and the Foreign Office will be based on a different set of principles, allowing different sets of arrangements to apply between the assembly and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the assembly and the Foreign Office.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
On the same point, will the representative directly from Wales to Europe have some autonomous decision-making authority in making financial arrangements between Europe, and perhaps regions of Europe, and Wales?
Mr. Davies:
I do not invite another intervention, but I am not sure that I understood the hon. Gentleman's question. The arrangements by which the representative from the assembly will take part in the discussions at a European level will be subject to the concordats that will be worked out by the assembly and the relevant Whitehall Department. Any discretion given to an individual representative--whether an assembly secretary or another representative--will be a matter for the assembly to decide. That is the purpose of the arrangements. If assembly members wish to give autonomy on certain matters to representatives to work within the United Kingdom's Council delegation, it will be a matter for them.
Part VI of the Bill begins the process of reforming the most significant Welsh quangos. Tai Cymru is to be abolished, and--under the provisions, for the first time--there will be an economic development agency with a true all-Wales strategic remit. The new agency will build on the best elements of practice and achievement of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales. I pay tribute to those organisations' considerable achievements, which include: the WDA's outstanding record in attracting inward investment to Wales; the DBRW's expertise in rural areas, which will remain a priority; and the Land Authority for Wales's commercial expertise in the acquisition and assembly of land and sites, which has made an important contribution to the regeneration effort throughout Wales. The new body will draw on the strengths of those three constituent parts.
Part VII contains general provisions relating to the Bill; and the 14 schedules to the Bill deal with points of detail.
I am pleased to say that--in line with the recommendations in the report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons--copies of the notes on clauses have been placed in the Library and in the Vote Office. I very much hope that hon. Members find that the notes are helpful in informing their preparation for and participation in this debate, particularly by clearly stating the intention behind each clause.
I anticipate tabling Government amendments at the appropriate time, to cover one or two issues that still need to be addressed relating to sustainable development, the precise arrangements for forestry, the role of the ombudsman, the keeping of public records and, of course, human rights.
The explanatory and financial memorandum provides for up to £17 million to meet the start-up costs for the assembly. I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that I am consulting on the most suitable location. The White Paper projected the annual running costs of the Assembly to be between £15 million and £20 million--in addition to those of the Welsh Office. That remains the estimate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Some of my constituents are involved in this matter, because they are employed at the headquarters of the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh. What is likely to be the nature of those amendments, and what changes does the Secretary of State envisage in the proposals relating to forestry in Wales, Scotland and England?
Mr. Davies:
Those matters are currently the subject of discussions. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is not likely to be any diminution in the employment prospects of people working for the Forestry Commission in his constituency. We must ensure that the advantages that come from the Forestry Commission retaining an overall strategic role for forestry in the United Kingdom are compatible with our aim that it should be answerable for operations in Scotland and Wales to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Dafis:
I have a constituency point, similar to that raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) because the national headquarters of the Forestry Commission--I use the word "national" rather than "regional"--are based at Aberystwyth. It is extraordinarily important that we have an all-Wales strategy for forestry with the organisational backing for it within Wales.
Mr. Davies:
As I have said, we shall table Government amendments to deal with that point, and I have no doubt that there will be an opportunity at the appropriate time for a fuller debate on the matter, when the hon. Gentleman can put his constituency case.
I should like to deal briefly with the Opposition amendment. I know that the right hon. Member for Devizes and his colleagues are having some difficulty in coming to terms with their role as the Opposition, but they have plenty of time and eventually they will get the hang of it. I should like to offer them some friendly advice, which I hope is constructive. First, they need to settle on a policy, preferably one with which the Conservative party in Wales agrees. If they are in any doubt about the wisdom of accepting a new policy, I suggest that they ask Lord Wyn Roberts, the senior Welsh member of the Conservative party. He has accepted the referendum result and, like everyone else in Wales, now just wants to get on and build a successful assembly.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should try to draft an amendment that can stand more than a passing examination. Their reasoned amendment is an insult to Parliament. At its heart, it calls for a statutory
assurance in relation to the supremacy of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is called the constitutional spokesperson for the Conservative party, but the idea of a statutory assurance in relation to the supremacy of Parliament is constitutional nonsense. Parliament is supreme, and any statutory assurance to that effect by this or any other Parliament can be set aside by any future Parliament. It is not possible in any circumstances to give the type of assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking.
Mr. Ancram:
Would the right hon. Gentleman like to take advice, because he has obviously not done his homework for the debate, about section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which is still extant?
Mr. Davies:
I am happy to take advice and to read the section to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but will he answer this central question? How is it possible for--[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to engage in debate, he should do me the courtesy of listening to my question. How is it possible for Parliament to place in a piece of legislation a statutory assurance that the supremacy of Parliament will be recognised and, at the same time, prevent any subsequent Parliament from setting aside that provision? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that question?
Mr. Ancram:
I shall help the right hon. Gentleman. Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 states that
"the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things"
in Northern Ireland. That assertion was put into the Act when it was passed and it is still extant in it. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about constitutional precedent, that of 70 years is surely a pretty good precedent on which to rely.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |