Lembit
Öpik: The hon. Lady is correct. I assume that she
is referring to marine current turbines. That technology is moving
fast, and once again, it is a great opportunity for us, because it can
work in concert with other options, rather than as the alternative to
them. Biomass, biofuels and biodiversity are also great opportunities
for us.
Mark
Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): Will my hon. Friend
acknowledge that the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research
in Aberystwyth can play an important role? It has excellent and
important biomass and biofuels projects. It has had its funding
setbacks during the past year, but there is much good work there. Will
he acknowledge and support its attempts for a common funding stream
with the university of Wales, Aberystwyth and the university of Wales,
Bangor, so that it does not become, as threatened, the outpost of a
research institute in
England?
Lembit
Öpik: My hon. Friend, who has always been a great
champion of IGER, makes some important points, and I compliment him on
his campaigning to try to save facilities that are unique in the United
Kingdom and a national treasure for Wales.
Finally on the environment, I
thank the Minister again for his work on the waste electrical and
electronic equipment directive, which relates directly to questions of
reuse and recycling. I do not need to go through the details of the
Benji and Co. case in my area, which highlighted the issue for me;
however, the Minister’s intervention is likely to generate a
change in regulations that helps not only the United Kingdom, but
potentially the whole of Europe. It could save millions of tonnes of
landfill and redirect the would-be landfill towards reuse.
The nature of the problem is so
great that I shall deliver one sentence about what is going wrong and
one about what could now go right. Companies such as Benji and Co. were
incentivised neither to repair slightly damaged products and put them
back on the market, nor to sell returned products at a slightly lower
price to customers. Because the Under-Secretary has taken a serious
interest in the matter, it looks as though the problem will be solved,
benefiting not only customers, but the environmental credentials of
Wales and indeed the United Kingdom. It is a good example of
cross-party work to solve a simple problem.
The Queen’s Speech is
conspicuous by what it missed out. I was asked about post office
closures, and the Liberal Democrats think that allowing local and rural
post offices to close is to allow an essential local service to
disappear. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Ynys
Môn (Albert Owen), we would not privatise the Royal Mail, but
sell a minority of its shares to keep the post office network open. We
would sell off less than 50 per cent., so if the Liberal Democrats were
in charge, the Government would always have a controlling share. We
would have liked to see something about that in the Queen’s
Speech.
We would have liked more
reassurance for the police, in line with what the right hon. Member for
Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said. We met a delegation from
Dyfed-Powys police, and they said that although the proposed merger has
not gone ahead, which was a sensible abandonment of a poor policy, they
are still suffering the funding consequences of it, and indeed of other
requirements imposed upon them. I hope that the Government take
seriously those representations, because the police are not party
political; they are trying to do their job, and they cannot do it
properly if they do not have the proper funding.
We heard about British
Waterways, which is concerned about the potential impact of cuts caused
by Government funding changes through the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs. British Waterways is important to the United
Kingdom and extremely important to parts of Wales, where, let us
remember, tourism is an important economic driver. I hope that British
Waterways’ coherent campaign will not fall on deaf ears in the
Wales Office or in the Government as a whole.
We would have liked something
about the protection of small schools. Small schools, like local post
offices, provide a social service as well as an educational one. I hope
that consideration will be given to ensuring that small villages can
attract young families because they have attractive primary school
facilities of the sort that often give exceptional educational
opportunities to the children who go through
them.
Mr.
Llwyd: Why is the Liberal Administration in Cardiff
shutting down schools wholesale?
Lembit
Öpik: The hon. Gentleman, who has chosen to rejoin
the
Committee—
Mr.
Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman has commented about my absence
doing other important work. Will he be here all
afternoon?
Lembit
Öpik: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier,
he would have heard me cover that point. Unfortunately, I have to
detain the Committee for a moment to remind him that I am not one of
the business managers of the Labour Government. The Government have
once again made it impossible for me, and for the Secretary of State
for Wales and for Northern Ireland, to attend both sittings of the
Committee. I hope that that means that the hon. Gentleman supports the
complaints that I made, in his absence, at the beginning of my speech.
No doubt, he had important business. However, were I focused just on
Wales, I would be here for the entire proceedings, including during the
speeches of Opposition
Members— [Interruption.] To
return to schools, hon. Members are being a bit naughty, and they need
to calm down; otherwise they will be kept in after class. On the point
that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy makes, it is incorrect
to say that the Liberal Democrat Administration are closing down small
schools. Can I remind him again, if he listens attentively this
time—
Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): Will the
hon. Gentleman give
way?
Lembit
Öpik: I should like to see protection for small
local schools in the rural environment because they provide an
important social service. I should like to think that that is the wish
of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy as well.
The Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not giving
way.
Lembit
Öpik: Hon. and right hon. Members know that I am
generous to a fault in giving way under normal conditions. Because I
have a certain affection for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South
and Penarth I will, on this final occasion, give
way.
Alun
Michael: The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the
Liberal Democrat Administration in Cardiff are not going ahead with
closing lots of schools. They have abandoned all hope of reforming the
school system, so they are not doing anything. Will he encourage them
to engage properly with the local community in the planning of
education for the
future?
Lembit
Öpik: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sage
counsel. I have no doubt that my colleagues in Cardiff are listening,
because they are already pursuing the very approach that he suggests.
The people of Cardiff can be reassured that that is the case.
As ever, I do not seek to slam
every aspect of the Queen’s Speech. That is a rather puerile way
of dealing with modern politics. I am disappointed by the
decentralising, authoritarian and, to some extent, privatising
tendencies that are evident in this Queen’s Speech. Liberal
Democrats feel that decentralisation, liberation and a truly green
agenda should be within our grasp. Even if hon. Members have different
philosophical viewpoints about how we run our public services, I should
like to think that the one thing that unites us is our capacity and
opportunity to make Wales the environmental capital of Europe. If
nothing else, that at least should focus us on our environmental
responsibilities and make us optimistic about the positive role that
Wales can play in leading the rest of Britain in showing that
sustainability is not a theory; it can be made into a
fact. 11.9
am
Albert
Owen: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member
for Montgomeryshire, but I must correct him. Selling off a major chunk
of a public asset and inviting the private sector to purchase it is
part
privatisation. The
Queen’s Speech had a huge impact on the people of Wales. As my
right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has
said, very few constituents come to me to talk about constitutional
affairs. They talk about pensions and climate change, and they
correspond about child support, welfare reform and security. The
Queen’s Speech addressed such
issues. On the day of
the Queen’s Speech, many commentators and, indeed, Opposition
spokesmen fell
into the trap of saying that there was nothing in it for Wales. Wales is
not exempt from climate change and global warming, and it is not exempt
from supporting its pensioners and children. The Queen’s Speech
addressed the long-term problems that our constituents care about and
that we, as Members, must take forward. I am proud that it included
those issues. A strong
and stable economy—we have talked about boom and bust—is
required in order to introduce some measures and to create a consistent
cycle for long-term investment. We have delayed too long in dealing
with the issue of state pensions. We should have been dealing with it
in the ’70s and ’80s in order to avoid the crisis in
which we now find ourselves, but at least the Queen’s Speech
offers hope for thousands of future pensioners, and we should be
pleased about that. The Queen’s Speech also came during the
period of the energy review and the pre-Budget report on expenditure in
Wales, so it is appropriate that I should comment on all three
issues. I shall deal
mainly with the forthcoming Climate Change Bill and pensions, but first
I shall address the side issue of the Welfare Reform Bill. The
Bill’s measures will be difficult to take. However, I have met
groups in my constituency and regional groups—my hon. Friend the
Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and I recently met members of
the Royal National Institute of the Blind—and many of them want
help and support to gain work and employment opportunities. The welfare
reform measures announced in the Queen’s Speech will assist
that, so I am happy to support them. I have concerns about the carrot
and stick approach—I think that there will be too much stick and
not enough carrot to encourage people to move from welfare into
work—but I think that the measures are
important. I welcome
the debate among all parties on poverty. This Government have a proud
record since 1997 on alleviating pensioner and child poverty. I have
heard the crude figures that more than 1 million pensioners have been
relieved from relative poverty and more than 2 million of them have
been relieved from abject poverty, a proud record on which to build for
the future. I welcome
the Conservative party’s engagement with the debate on poverty.
There might be a split between members who support Polly Toynbee and
members who do not, but at least they are actively engaging in the
debate for the first time and discussing relative poverty. However, I
am concerned that when the focus moves to relative poverty, it will be
forgotten that some people in our constituencies still live in abject
poverty and find it difficult to move forward, so I hope that they will
still be a priority.
I am proud of our record of
targeting the poorest pensioners in our constituencies, and it is right
to do so. In debating the Pensions Bill, we will discuss restoring the
link to earnings. I hope that that will be done carefully, so that we
do not hurt the vulnerable people whom we have been helping or
redistribute public support away from the poorest pensioners to other
areas. However, we must balance those considerations with the need to
help pensioner groups to save and be self-sufficient. I am pleased that
we will have the Bill and that debate, and I hope that we can attain a
consensus.
Mr.
Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that probably the
biggest disincentive to pensioner saving was the Chancellor’s
raid on pension funds? Analysts have said recently that it extracted
£150 billion from pension
funds.
Albert
Owen: There are a number of reasons why investment in
occupational and private pensions has been discouraged. One of them is
that many companies have chosen to take holidays and have not been
investing.
Chris
Ruane: Tory
councils.
Albert
Owen: My hon. Friend mentions local government, but I am
also talking about large companies that have chosen not to invest in
pension funds, so that when it comes to final salaries, they experience
difficulties. There are many reasons, and that is one of them. The hon.
Member for Clwyd, West keeps harping on about one reason all the time.
I do not have the figures, and I have never seen the Conservative
Opposition prove the point about how much has been spent. Of course,
the Lawson chancellorship talked about doing something about the
holidays to allow pension funds to reinvest, but, of course, he did not
enact that proposal, and it was left to our Government and our
Chancellor to try to deal with the
issue.
Mr.
Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the figure of
£150 billion was produced last month by an independent
actuary?
Albert
Owen: The deputy Leader of the Conservative party has
mentioned a different figure in the Chamber, which is the problem. It
is difficult to quantify how much might have been invested, because a
lot of the profits have been taken away. It is hard to assess what the
profits might have been, and it is difficult to come to a specific
figure. Of
course, the moneys that the Chancellor has taken in taxation have been
reinvested in our communities and have helped the very pensioners who
were unable to join occupational schemes or private pensions.
Pensioners in Wales have benefited considerably from the measures taken
by the Chancellor. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West nods his head, but
if 2 million people are out of abject poverty, it is a good result for
the Government and it is a stain on the Conservative Government for
allowing that number of people to be in abject
poverty. On climate
change, I welcome the fact that we can have a mature debate about how
we are going to deal with global warning and the related issues. We
have had the energy review, in which many people who were entrenched in
certain positions actually changed their minds about the needs of the
nation and the need for proper targets to be met. I am a bit
disappointed that we do not have annual targets, and I supported
Friends of the Earth on that point. I understand the argument why we
should not have those annual targets—there might be slippage,
and if gas from certain parts of the world were to be cut off, those
targets would not be met
because we are not self-sufficient. There would be a huge annual debate
to say that the Government have
failed. We need to
look to the long term, so that by 2050 we have a trend that helps us to
be more efficient on CO2 emissions and ensures that the
targets are brought down. I am comfortable about that, as long as we
move towards reducing CO2 emissions. The Welsh Affairs
Committee undertook an interesting inquiry into energy in Wales and
produced an interesting report. I am pro-nuclear, not only because of
my constituency, but because I think that it is a green energy that
will help the environment in the future. I am proud to support
it. My Assembly
Member, the leader of Plaid Cymru, has two policies. In the mess room
of the nuclear power station, he says that he is in favour of nuclear
power, but he has another policy outside the power station, because his
party are hostile to it. I want him to get off the fence and to make a
statement on nuclear power, because he is the leader of a major
political party in Wales and we are talking about climate change,
energy efficiency, energy requirements and CO2
emissions. The
Committee undertook the inquiry and came to the conclusion that we
needed a rich mix, which includes greater use of clean coal, of biomass
and of other renewables. I support renewables and do not think, as the
hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and others have
said, that we need a debate between wind turbines—or even marine
turbines—and the barrage, because we need to consider them all
for the long-term future.
We should remember that even
with the most ambitious targets for 2020 of raising the use of
renewables by 20 per cent., we will still have a gap because of the
closure programme for nuclear power stations. That is why I support
building new ones, and why I support the Welsh Affairs Committee, which
has said that we need to have a continuing mature debate and that, if
we are going to build them, they should be built on the existing sites.
That is why I am confused that the Plaid Cymru leader does not support
the Welsh Affairs Committee, which contains Plaid Cymru and Liberal
Democrat Members. The report was unanimous in saying that we should
have new nuclear build on existing sites. Of course, there is a site in
my constituency. I welcome the recommendation and I know that the
people of Anglesey, Ynys Môn, support it—it is the best
decision in the long-term interests of
Wales. Mark
Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): The report raised the question
whether we should go along that line. The hon. Gentleman is painting a
global picture, but the review was phrased in terms of whether we
should go along that
route.
| 
