Albert
Owen: Is it still the intention of the Liberal Democrats
to privatise part of the Post Office, and does he see that as being in
line with the Queen’s
Speech?
Lembit
Öpik: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I
shall speak specifically about that subject. If I have not answered his
question within a few minutes, he may intervene again.
It would be a matter of great
joy if the improvements to the Child Support Agency were genuine rather
than being simply a change of name. I hope that the Government will
have the courage to recognise that right hon. and hon. Members in all
parties are utterly dissatisfied with the performance of the CSA. That
is not because the staff are incompetent or unwilling to do a good job
but because the restrictions within which they have to operate and the
modus operandi of the entire system mean that the costs are extremely
high compared with the return and that those who are hellbent on
avoiding their parental responsibilities often find ways around it. I
hope that the Government will implement a root and branch review to
help those working for the CSA to do the job for which they are
paid. The principles
of the national health service were mentioned in the Queen’s
Speech. All hon. Members will agree that the NHS has been fundamentally
effective in improving the health of the nation over the decades but
that it now seems to be blighted with crisis. The question often asked
is why, with so much additional investment, it still has so many
problems. I suggest that part of the answer lies in the obsession with
performance targets and measures. I have long held the view, as has my
party, that such measures often have unintended consequences because
the system focuses on them rather than the outcome, which is the
general improvement of public health.
Chris
Bryant: I suggest that there is a wholly different reason
why the money that we have put into the health service in Wales, and
particularly the south Wales valleys, has not completely and utterly
transformed people’s lives: it is simply that there was an
enormous health need, which people never even dreamed of addressing in
the past. It is only now, as a result of a significant increase in the
amount of money and resources that is going into the local health
service, that we have been able to start addressing the problem.
However, in many of the poorest areas of Wales, which saw the least
money in the past, an enormous health need still
exists.
Lembit
Öpik: I will surprise the hon. Gentleman by
agreeing with him to an extent. He will know that I have complimented
the Labour party on previous
occasions on going some way towards undoing the colossal damage done by
the Conservatives during their 18 years in
power.
Mr.
Roger Williams: The intervention by the hon. Member for
Rhondda makes it clear that the funds that Wales receives are
completely inadequate to meet the needs of the people, which is why we
totally oppose the Barnett formula for allocating money. Part of the
issue is that health needs—particularly those of south Wales,
which reflect its industrial past—require more
investment.
Lembit
Öpik: I agree with my hon. Friend. Coupled with
that are measures that skew hospitals’
activities—particularly as a result of the complicated
interrelation across the England-Wales border—and which have the
unintended consequence of producing differential waiting lists. As the
hon. Member for Rhondda said, the Government have made a genuine effort
to improve matters, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire said, they have been only partially successful in Wales.
However, there are legislative solutions, including repealing some of
the unnecessary burdens that are imposed on health professionals, who
can run their businesses pretty well without having to provide endless
statistics or accommodate spurious measures for public
consumption.
Chris
Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has got it completely and
utterly wrong; indeed, I suspect that many of my colleagues think that
he has got things completely wrong from the beginning of his speech.
Since I was first elected five years ago, the transformation in local
health service provision in my patch has been dramatic. When I was
first elected, somebody would come through the door every week
complaining about the length of waiting lists, but I do not get that at
all now. It is, however, difficult to transform the health service in
one short period of five or 10 years, because we simply cannot increase
capacity faster than we can train people to work as GPs and so on
across the valleys.
Lembit
Öpik: I am a bit disappointed by the hon.
Gentleman’s savage attack on my speech so far. To suggest that I
have got it completely and utterly wrong would mean that he has got it
at least partially wrong, because I was agreeing with him to an extent.
I was trying to give a measured response to his question and I am sorry
that he has to reduce the issue to one of party politics. However, that
is a matter for him. The Liberal Democrats are concerned not with
scoring points, but with getting results, and in that sense I should
like to think that, in a quiet moment, the hon. Gentleman would accept
that there is a real case for reducing the administrative burden on
health professionals. They should be trusted to a greater extent to
know what is best for their institutions and patients.
In the context of getting
things completely and utterly wrong, I am terribly disappointed about
the time that it has taken to achieve any significant improvement in
the rail service. Regular users of the railways in mid-Wales know that
the system is tragically unreliable and that, on the journey from
mid-Wales to Shrewsbury, for example, people are late as a matter of
course; indeed, they can virtually set their clocks by the delay,
rather than by the punctuality of the railways. A great opportunity has
been wasted, because the Labour party had the chance to say that it
would oppose privatisation and act on the issue if it formed a
Government, but it was too scared to do anything. As a result, we have
a system that still does not work. While the Queen’s Speech
talks about improved public transport, the real proof will be if we can
see a genuine and sustained improvement in the accessibility of public
transport, particularly the trains, and also in the reliability of
those systems. The
final significant point in the Queen’s Speech was the question
of enhancing confidence in Government statistics. I would like to share
a thought on this which hon. Members might like to consider for present
and future debates. If we were to tabulate health disorders on a
geographical basis, we would not only be able to see potential patterns
that would indicate health hotspots but it could also suggest potential
causes. If, for example, there was a cluster of cancers in a certain
area, we might identify either a local industrial source for it or a
local natural source. I think the Government should seek to tabulate
disease according to the location where disease
occurs.
Lembit
Öpik: All the figures exist but they are not
tabulated in a highly accessible form. I know they exist because a
constituent came to see me who had spent a huge amount of time trying
to glean the information and then tabulating it in just the way I have
described. I would hope, therefore, that the Government would take the
relatively simple step of providing health statistics in a way that
connects them to the geographical locations where hotspots
occur. Looking at the
other parties, particularly the Conservative party comments, I am
rather surprised and confused by the statement by the hon. Member for
Chesham and Amersham, who currently is not in her place. She said that
the Conservatives were basically pro-devolution. I quote the hon.
Member for Monmouth from the debate on Second Reading of the Government
of Wales Bill. This is what he
said: “I was
delighted to stand against the original proposals for the Welsh
Assembly. I can see that it has had some advantages in terms of
openness but those advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages. We
have caused enormous damage to the UK which will result in our having
to return to legislation in a few years’
time.” He says
in the same
speech: “I
fully agree with my hon. Friend, as I do on most matters that relate to
devolution.” He
is referring to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. Then he goes
on to say: “In
fact in virtually all matters there is barely a cigarette paper to be
put between us.”—[Official Report, 9 January
1997; Vol. 441, c.
87.] Unfortunately,
the hon. Lady is not here to explain what seems to me to be a
contradiction. If I add all of that together, it does seem to me that
those of us who are concerned about a potential future Conservative
Government are justified in being so. Because if there is hardly a
cigarette paper between what I have read out and the views of the hon.
Lady, we can only draw the conclusion that, should she become Secretary
of State for Wales, she will use the enormous powers invested in the
Secretary of State for Wales to thwart devolution and perhaps even roll
it backwards. Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman
acknowledge that it was only the Conservatives who wanted a referendum
on the part 2 powers of the Act? Is it not the case that the Liberal
Democrats voted with the Government in opposing a referendum on part 2
powers?
Lembit
Öpik: I am making a strategic point which I think
the hon. Gentleman needs to take seriously. He is the only Conservative
left in the Chamber. The others, presumably, are frit and regrouping
elsewhere. It is not surprising that some of us are quite sceptical
about the Conservative party’s alleged commitment to devolution
when, first, they openly oppose changes such as the Government of Wales
Bill, which I think did not go far enough but at least was progress,
and secondly, individuals who might occupy a senior position in a
future Conservative Government say that they think the disadvantages of
the Welsh Assembly outweigh the advantages.
Mr.
Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that the people
of Wales should have a say on those powers in a referendum? Why does he
oppose
that?
Lembit
Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is completely missing the
point. We are not having a debate about the referendum; we are having a
debate about whether the Conservatives could be trusted to shepherd and
nurture the future of the Welsh Assembly and Welsh devolution. I do not
think that the quotations I have read out from Hansard give us
any confidence whatever that the alleged Conservative support for
devolution in this place is anything more than lip service, because
they have their own internal divisions. One of the reasons why I am so
concerned about the Government of Wales Act in its current form is that
it gives a green light to obfuscation, should there be a Conservative
Government. For that reason, I am terribly disappointed that the
Government have given any future Conservative Government the chance to
undo much of the good that those of us who are pro-devolution have
sought to
introduce. As for
Plaid Cymru, it is clear from The Western Mail, which is one of
the finest newspapers in
Britain—
Chris
Bryant: It is
rubbish.
Lembit
Öpik: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but there we
go—another difference of view. I like The Western Mail,
and I am particularly interested in today’s front-page story,
which says that there has been an “Historic ‘Room 13
Accord’ to save day for Rhodri”, under which Ieuan Wyn
Jones from Plaid Cymru has apparently agreed to bail out the Labour
party in the forthcoming vote on the budget.
I have no issues with
coalitions, of course, but I do have an issue with inconsistency. It
looks as though Plaid Cymru has turned 180° in its attitude to
such matters. I recall that not so long ago the hon. Member for
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, when talking about the prospects for a
coalition between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, described
us as the whores of British politics. What phrase would he use to
describe his own party, reaching an “accord” in Room 13
of the Senedd? When I wanted to make mildly positive comments about
some aspect of Labour’s policies in a previous Welsh Grand
Committee, the hon. Gentleman actually told me, “Get off your
knees.” What advice would he give himself and Ieuan Wyn Jones,
when they seem to have done a volte face on their policies? I should
like to ask the hon. Gentleman to respond, but unfortunately he seems
to have nipped off to Spain for a few minutes, so perhaps he will
respond to my questions in writing. [Hon.
Members: “Old jokes.”] These are not old
jokes; they are improvised jokes, in front of a live studio
audience. I want to
cover two other issues, one of which is the environment, on which I
hope there can be a degree of accord. The Liberal Democrats held a
useful meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on the
issue, and I thank him for the time that he spent with us. I hope that
we can all start thinking of Wales as the potential environmental
capital of the UK and Europe. With targets and scrutiny, we can pledge,
as the Scottish Parliament has, to take our share of the Kyoto cuts in
emissions. In the
same sense, we can have proactive policies on carbon trading, and work
in a rational and strategic way towards generating a truly Welsh
economy, with grants and proper nurturing of what is, even now, a
fairly well advanced Welsh green economy. Smart meters, Energy Saving
Trust funding, energy efficiency measures, and the development of even
more stringent strategic targets for building programmes and so on
could give us a significant
edge. We have already
talked about renewable energy in questions and in the debate. I should
add that I am encouraged by the Secretary of State’s offer to
hold a meeting to focus specifically on the question of tidal lagoons
versus the Severn barrage. I happily accept that invitation, and shall
seek once again to put together a delegation of professionals in the
industry who can speak about such matters with far more authority than
I can.
Mr.
David Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not
necessarily the case that the choice must be between the Severn barrage
and tidal lagoons? Both are complementary and both are predictable
sources of
power.
Lembit
Öpik: In fairness, the hon. Gentleman is correct.
We need to think long and hard about what the best combination is in
the interests of Wales. With a substantial coastline and many
estuaries, we have the opportunity to enhance Welsh renewable
production to the point where we could produce more energy than Wales
uses.
Nia
Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Would the hon. Gentleman also
include turbines in the range of options for using the tide to generate
power? They can
be installed in small locations, in many different places. They are also
versatile, and involve perhaps less initial investment than some of the
bigger projects, so would that not be something to raise in the
discussion?
| 
