Previous SectionIndexHome Page


7 pm

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) spoke, as the Committee would expect, powerfully and thoughtfully about sustainable development. Like many other Conservative Members, I greatly sympathise with his argument. Listening to the debate, however, one would have thought that we were talking about certain matters of substance, not about a constitutional Bill which will establish a set of bodies.

Amendment No. 517 and Government new clause 38 illustrate beautifully the problem that the Government face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, new clause 38 is a slight but admirable restriction of the sort that might be applied to a local authority. Amendment No. 517 moves in the opposite direction. Although the arrow of the hon. Member for Ceredigion is excellent, he aims at a target that I think he would dislike if he contemplated it further, as the amendment would further extend the scope of the Welsh Development Agency.

Who would run what and who would pay for what in terms of sustainable development if, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion suggests, both the amendment and the new clause were agreed to, or if, as is more likely, only the new clause were accepted? Under clause 80, the


He will be the all-powerful paymaster of the assembly. Under the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, the Secretary of State and the Treasury can grant unlimited borrowing powers to the WDA.

What will happen if the WDA chooses to move in a direction, in terms of sustainable development, wholly opposite from that of the United Kingdom Government

25 Feb 1998 : Column 422

and the Welsh assembly, regardless of whether the assembly is constrained by new clause 38? Which body will prevail in this hypothetical case? Manifestly, the United Kingdom Government will prevail, as the Secretary of State and the Treasury will be able to ensure that their favoured policy is pursued through the WDA; they will fund the agency through the borrowing power and deny funds to the assembly.

Before we debated these measures, I had naively understood that the Government wanted to avoid creating a quangocracy. However, the Bill will allow a quango, based on the great powers retained by the Secretary of State and the Treasury, to fight against an ostensibly democratic institution, which, because it will be limited by the new clause as if it were a local authority, will be entirely subject to the fiscal powers of the Secretary of State and the Treasury.

In those circumstances, the assembly will be the loser, which might not be a bad outcome for those of us who favour the integrity of the United Kingdom. However, if the democratically legitimate body opposes the quango, which is the servant of the UK Government, there will be a devil of a fight, and the matter may be referred to our old friend the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a devolution issue. Who, in such circumstances, will genuinely hold the power over sustainable development in Wales?

The Secretary of State may shake his head but, given that the Minister spent little time on this question earlier, it would help the Committee if, instead of concentrating on the important matters of substance--which, in fact, will largely be for the assembly to debate at a later date--he said who will be in charge of this domain, regardless of whether new clause 38 is accepted.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) repeats the depressing cry that we have often heard from the Conservative Benches--that every situation that could arise when the Senedd is established will lead to conflict, and not, as we believe, to co-operation. People throughout Wales will be happy to see the new clause included in the Bill. By voting for the parties that currently represent it in the House of Commons, Wales has taken a great lead in understanding the need for sustainability.

This weekend, there will be a conference in Merthyr to commemorate the 16th anniversary of a remarkable declaration by the people of Wales speaking with one voice. Every county council, representing the entire population, resolved to make Wales a nuclear-free zone. That was long before the decision was taken elsewhere. Democratic Wales had spoken, and if it had spoken on other issues at the time, it would have made a similar resolution about sustainability. The man who took the declaration to Strasbourg has now become immensely successful--and possibly prosperous--in organic farming in Ceredigion.

When I heard what the Estonian Biggles, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), said about sustainable air flights in mid-Wales from the Heathrow at Welshpool that is bound to be developed, I was fascinated by the prospect.

Sustainability is understood in Wales. Labour Members share the fears about the future for farming, especially as we face a particularly difficult problem in Wales. If we

25 Feb 1998 : Column 423

lose the small farmers, we lose the language, whichis a terrible threat. Labour Members support the Government's policy, as we realise that, although many of the changes in farming are painful, they are inevitable--there is a shrinking market for many products. Nevertheless, we want small farms to be preserved, as they have a special cultural importance to Wales.

I urge farmers to achieve sustainability by planting new crops and farming organically. The British Isles imports 60 per cent. of its organic products. Moreover, organic farming is highly labour intensive, and it works well in areas without especially promising land. Several farms in remote communities in Ceredigion have, despite a difficult start 20 years ago, defied all the critics and been prosperous and successful. Why cannot farmers realise that they can cultivate other harvests, which have a future? I am thinking, for example, of flax and hemp, which has unique properties other than those that prompt people's desire to smoke it--farmers could plant hemp with non-addictive qualities and low-quality THC.

The new clause will muster great support. It will give the assembly a new impetus and role, and express what Wales has shown that it can do when, on those rare occasions, it speaks with a united voice. We want to ensure a sustainable future that will be in harmony with nature.

Mr. Ron Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the path of the prospect that he opened up. When he was describing the growing conditions in remote farms in Ceredigion, I suspected that he would suggest some novel crops--I was not disappointed. However, I would get into difficulty with my Cabinet colleagues if I suggested that the sole purpose of devolution, was to bring about a different policy in Wales on growing cannabis. Nevertheless, I welcome my hon. Friend's support.

The term "historic" has been used several times this evening, and I must use it again. The debate has been historic. The policy advocated by the Government has been endorsed not only by the spokesperson for Plaid Cymru--or should we now call it Plaid Newydd?--and by the Liberal Democrats but, I was astonished to note, by four of our own Back Benchers. In our debates on devolution, that is a rare and welcome occurrence. Moreover, not only did four of our Back Benchers speak in support of Government policy, but not one spoke against it. This truly is a historic debate.

I welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). In the absence of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), he found himself waxing eloquent in favour not only of the Government's policy in new clause 38 but of the assembly.

Mr. Evans indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman spent several entertaining moments telling us of all the great benefits that would come to Wales as a result of the assembly. Indeed, during the referendum campaign not even the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), in his most enthusiastic of speeches, would

25 Feb 1998 : Column 424

ever have dared suggest that if we voted yes on 18 September we would be able to bring back the Mumbles railway, yet it appears that that is the conclusion of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. We welcome support from whichever quarter it comes. The hon. Gentleman is a late convert to the cause of devolution, but he is an enthusiastic one, and he is welcomed as such.

The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis). I am grateful for the way in which he spoke. Of course he has a great and deep conviction on such matters and he has argued his case consistently, as he did this evening. Later, I shall answer some of his specific questions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) was supportive and gave us some good examples of how the Welsh assembly, in pursuance of the duty placed on it, will be able to give expression to the principles of sustainable development. He made it clear that he regarded the principle of protecting the environment as an important, but not exclusive, part of sustainable development.

I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan). She was right in her assertion that sustainability must now be at the heart of politics. What we can do, as we frame the legislation, is to place the duty on the assembly. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) said, it is those in charge of the political process who must develop the politics and policies to give expression to the duty that we shall lay on the assembly to have regard to the principle of sustainable development.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North asked three questions. She asked whether we would set targets and whether there would be a forum for the matter to be discussed by the assembly. The answers, of course, will be a matter for the assembly. What we shall do is to place a duty on the assembly. My hon. Friend's third question was what precisely that meant. I refer her to new clause 38(1), which makes it clear that the new clause will impose a duty on the assembly to have regard to sustainable development in the exercise of all its functions.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) raised that point too, and I agree with what both he and the hon. Member for Ceredigion said about the branding of Wales. It is important that, at the heart of the new Wales that we want to create, we put the idea of respect for the environment and for the principles of sustainability. Both transport and agricultural systems should work with the grain of the environment and according to the principles of sustainability.

Several hon. Members have gently teased me about the site of the assembly. I know that it will come as a great surprise and regret to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley when I say that I shall not tell him this evening the outcome of our consultation and discussion process.

I can make one important announcement to the Committee. I know that everybody will be greatly interested to know that the assembly will not be on a green-field site. As colleagues who have followed our deliberations carefully will know, all the sites under consideration are brown-field sites, so that information will not come as a great surprise.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) rather spoiled the debate, which was well informed and considered until his intervention. I am sorry

25 Feb 1998 : Column 425

about that. The substance of his contribution is something for the hon. Member for Ceredigion to take up, but he also returned to the idea of trying to raise conflict all the time.

I genuinely suggest that the hon. Member for West Dorset has have chat with the converts who now sit on the Opposition Front Bench. They will be able to explain to him that the idea of eternal conflict being institutionalised into our constitution is fantasy. The new arrangements will not work like that.

The hon. Gentleman asked the question about the Welsh Development Agency in our previous debate, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in reply to that debate, told him the position.


Next Section

IndexHome Page