| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Öpik: I welcome that suggestion. Contrary to what Conservative Members have said, it is encouraging that, during the Bill's evolution, the process has been inclusive. That happened before the election, and between the election and the publication of the Bill. I hope that it will continue as we approach the election of members of the assembly. Any move that opens discussion and allows all interested parties to participate is a welcome addition to the process of inclusive politics and constructive opposition.
Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) does not need my invitation to express his view. I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) about the Government's inclusive style. Just before Christmas, there will be a meeting of the Green Alliance which, as he
knows, consists of environmental groups in Wales. It will come as some surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham to know that the old regime does not apply in Wales, because a senior civil servant from the devolution unit in the Welsh Office will meet the Green Alliance to discuss our thoughts on how an amendment should be phrased.
Mr. Öpik: I am delighted to hear that. If the public transport system in my neck of the woods were more effective, I might endeavour to turn up. However, as I have a smelly old diesel vehicle, I might have to steer clear, and cycling to Cardiff is perhaps beyond my physical capabilities.
I should like to speak a little more about some economic issues. There was some discussion about the Barnett formula. I understand that there is no reason whatever to assume that Wales will be worse off under that formula simply because it has a devolved assembly. I understand that under the Barnett formula money can rise or fall, and that the formula could be completely changed. However, that is separate from the issue of having a devolved assembly.
Mr. Wigley:
Did the hon. Gentleman hear Lord Barnett say on Welsh television some three weeks ago that, if the Barnett formula were reviewed now, Wales would almost certainly be better off under that review than under the present formula?
Mr. Öpik:
I did not see the interview to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I have no doubt that that is true. Who better than Mr. Barnett--[Hon. Members: "Lord Barnett."] I tend not to recognise these heady titles. Coming from the Republic of Estonia, my parents, of course, never had to try to recall such privileges.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan:
Would it not be for the benefit of the House if the hon. Gentleman commented on the fact that the Barnett formula was originally invented in the late 1970s to cope with the anticipated devolution, which never took place because of the referendum result in 1979? Therefore, it would be the height of absurdity to claim that democratic devolution is a threat to the Barnett formula, as that is what the formula was devised to accommodate in the late 1970s.
Mr. Öpik:
Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In other words, we have been here before and, at that time, there was no danger to the Barnett formula from the simple virtue of introducing a democratic process.
Mr. Hain:
May I remind the House that, today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury published a statement reaffirming the Government's commitment to the Barnett formula? Were it to be revised, in all likelihood Wales would benefit, because, under the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997, Wales's gross domestic product fell relative to the English average, as a result of which, in any revision, Wales's overall block assessment is well placed to be uprated. Of course, the Barnett formula covers the percentage change in the block, not the total block, as it were.
Mr. Öpik:
I welcome this continuing good news from all around me in the Chamber on the Barnett formula. Indeed, I am beginning to fear that Wales will be awash with money, with the changes that have been described.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives):
We shall get some more good news if my hon. Friend keeps going.
Mr. Öpik:
Indeed. I should keeping going until Wales is the wealthiest part of Europe.
Mr. Öpik:
I shall happily give way for, I hope, further good news, this time from the Conservative party.
Mr. Jenkin:
I should be extremely grateful if the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to turn up at the Second Reading of the Bill on the government of Scotland to make all these explanations, and to make clear what he has discovered today, so that Scottish Members are equally well informed about the future of the Barnett formula and the likely effects on Scottish spending.
Mr. Öpik:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous offer, but as a humble, relative new boy to the House, I believe that even the Öpik empire does not extend yet to Scotland. However, I shall pass those comments on to my colleagues north of the border.
It is interesting to note that the Barnett formula has not, as the Minister pointed out, taken account of the10 per cent. fall in GDP over the past decade--I believe that that is in real terms--and that needs to be addressed.
Clearly, and without dwelling on it, there is a serious crisis in the rural economy, brought on not least by the most recent announcements by the Government--which I personally regard as regrettable--on the sale of beef on the bone. A Welsh Assembly could be regarded as an opportunity to lobby directly for the rural interests of those agricultural communities. Let me stress that Wales, perhaps more than any other part of the United Kingdom, is experiencing the deepest hardship in its rural economy on account of the proposals that have been made.
Mr. Denzil Davies:
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about beef on the bone. As I understand it, if the Bill is passed, the agricultural powers of the Welsh Office will end up in the Welsh Assembly. Does he understand that, in that situation, if an English Minister of Agriculture banned beef on the bone, a Welsh Assembly might not have to ban it?
Mr. Öpik:
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about the limitations on the assembly's powers. We would like it to have primary legislation powers, which would provide a greater opportunity for Wales to fight its corner without endless reference to Westminster.
Mr. Denzil Davies:
I want to make my position clear. Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the Bill that, if the English Minister of Agriculture was able to ban by order--not primary legislation--beef on the bone, as appears to be the case, a Welsh Assembly would not have to pass such an order, and people in Wales could continue to eat beef on the bone?
Mr. Öpik:
We could certainly do that in secret, but I shall give way to the Secretary of State to clarify the point.
Mr. Ron Davies:
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) makes an interesting and persuasive case. If powers to make orders relating to animal or
Mr. Öpik:
I am guided by the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I thank him for the clarification--
Mr. Öpik:
I want to move on, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Letwin:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I do not want to delay him unduly. Does he realise that an enormous hole has now been blown in his argument? If, as the Secretary of State has assured us, the Welsh Assembly will not have the slightest control over the matter, how on earth will it help the Welsh people, in respect of beef on the bone and other issues, to have a Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Öpik:
I want to make some progress--[Interruption.] I shall briefly answer the question head on.
If the Welsh Assembly genuinely has the opportunity to represent the interests of Wales in the European forum--which to a greater or lesser extent is the case--there is no doubt that, if we were to achieve a phased lifting of the beef ban across the United Kingdom, not only would Northern Ireland have a good chance of being first in such phasing, but Wales would have a good chance of having its ban lifted earlier than the rest of the United Kingdom--[Interruption.]
Opposition Members deride that comment. If they choose to reject my point, they are simply rejecting the efficacy of a devolved system of government. Many times they have said that they have little faith in a devolved system, but I cite the great belief of people in Scotland in a devolved system. They believe that they can make decisions in the European forum as well as in the United Kingdom forum. I also cite the guidance that we had today from the Secretary of State that that will, to some extent, be the case. It is something that we can discuss at greater length as the Bill proceeds.
I want briefly to make the point about proportionality, which has been made many times before. We support a different system of election, but as the Bill is unequivocal on the proposed system, we reiterate once again our plea to increase the proportional nature by adding 10 additional places. I shall not rehearse arguments that have been made many times before, but we genuinely believe that there is plenty of evidence that that would achieve a more proportionate outcome.
We accept the Secretary of State's unequivocal commitment, in writing, that the issue will be reviewed if it turns out that the system that has been chosen is not proportionate. We welcome that longer-term commitment to finding a proportionate system.
We must be clear about regional development agencies, and about the political structures across Wales. Economic and political autonomy will have to be clearly defined within the context of the Welsh Assembly. We cannot overestimate that matter.
I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that the majority in the referendum was insufficient for us to assume that everyone in Wales was completely comfortable with a Welsh Assembly. Liberal Democrats very much believe that a regionalised system that is transparent and devolves decisions to the regions of Wales will go a long way towards allaying many of the fears.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |