COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

of the

EVIDENCE OF:

THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL PARKS AUTHORITIES

THE NATIONAL TRUST

RSPB CYMRU

THE FORESTRY COMMISSION

held at

THE ROYAL WELSH SHOWGROUND, INTERNATIONAL PAVILION

on

THURSDAY 8 MAY 2003

In Attendance:

Lord Richard, Chair, Richard Commission

Eira Davies, Richard Commission

Tom Jones, Richard Commission

Peter Price, Richard Commission

Ted Rowlands, Richard Commission

Vivenne Sugar, Richard Commission

Huw Vaughan Thomas, Richard Commission

Paul Valerio, Richard Commission

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth, Richard Commission

Martin Fitton, Association of National Parks Authorities

Huw Davies, The Forestry Commission

Iwan Huws, The National Trust

Dr Tim Stowe, RSPB Cymru

Katie-Jo Luxton, RSPB Cymru

Lord Richard

Can I thank you very much for coming? You all put in papers which we read with interest. What I would like to do, if I may, is adopt the same procedures as we did with another group. I will ask you to first of all identify yourselves, secondly perhaps open up your parts of the discussion or argument for perhaps five or seven minutes, and perhaps we can then pursue thereafter issues which the Commission would wish to pursue. If that is agreeable, we will start on the left.

Martin Fitton, Association of National Parks Authorities

Martin Fitton, Chief Executive of the Association of National Parks Authorities. The Association helps co-ordinate the work of the National Parks. It is a UK body but it has increased its devolved structure in the last 18 months, partly as a result of governmental changes, so the Welsh, English, and the new Scottish parks form the membership of the Association. Obviously, the implications of devolution for us are considerable.

Mr Chairman, did you just want initial introductions?

Lord Richard

No, I want the seven minutes as well.

Ted Rowlands

Six, now.

Martin Fitton

Well to begin with, I should say that clearly the National Park Authorities have taken a limited view of devolution issues themselves; they are in that sense neutral bodies, but clearly devolution has had a major impact on the Authorities. I would say to begin with that it is a view that has been a generally beneficial impact in terms of the way in which it has produced a better focus for the work of the three Welsh National Parks, which are Snowden, Brecon, and Pembroke.

It has given us at one level much better access to government than we had previously under the old system. We now report annually to the Assembly, both as part of the bidding process but it is also an opportunity to report on the previous year’s achievement and what we have done with what is basically public money, because the parks are largely supported by public money as you will know as well. In that sense our views about devolution have been positive and we think we have benefited from it.

I just want to then pick up a number of points, not so much problems, because I think we are in the very early stages of the development of the Assembly. But rather pick up areas that we think are important and areas where we think things have happened or things could be improved in terms of our experience during the last four years.

First is obviously in relation to the Committee structure itself. As I have indicated, we report to the Environment Committee annually and I have said how valuable that is. It is fair to say though that we think at times that the discussions have not been as – and I use this word advisedly – ‘forensic’ as they might have been, in terms of challenging us to justify our own actions. Now it is a little odd for an organisation to say we got an easy ride, but I think in a sense easy rides are of no benefit to either side, because wanting beneficial at hand. We now have to think even more co-operatively, because we have presented our evidence to those committees on a very common basis.

We have shared the workload. It has not been Snowden coming in and talking about itself, Brecon, and Pembroke; it has about the three parks talking across the whole aspect of the work about what we are doing. At times we have had the impression the committees were not, is it allowed on this sort of outing totally on top of their brief in relation to these things. We think that is about time...

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

Can I interrupt for one moment? Is there a remit letter to you from the Minister? Do you have a remit?

Martin Fitton

We have a very clear statutory obligation that is addressed to the individual National Parks. I should have said at the beginning and apologies; your office is aware that we have been a little delayed, but our evidence to you is ready. It is still being cleared by the three National Parks, so will receive that and apologies for that.

I should say that the National Parks are special purpose local authorities and are in that sense independent from each other. If they work together, they work together out of mutual choice. The remit for the National Parks is as laid down in statute. There is a range of statutes from the 1949 Act right up until the most recent legislation which is ’95, affecting what parks do. The parks are about facilitating protection and maintenance of the natural environment of the National Parks, facilitating public enjoyment, and finally – since the ’95 Act – formally to take on license of the social-economic needs of the communities in the park.

Lord Richard

You are not an Assembly quango?

Martin Fitton

We are not an Assembly quango. We are talking about the individual parks here, because if we are corporate it is an informal corporateness that the Association represents; we have no formal status as an Association. The parks are really rather hybrid and odd bodies; they are semi-quangos, in the sense in that three-quarters of their members are drawn from the local authorities, though not by election in any way, simply nominated from the local authorities in the area. The other quarter are chosen now by the Assembly. In that sense, they have both components of being quangos and components of being local authorities. The formal term used after ’95 is ‘special purpose local authorities’, and they have full planning powers – sole planning authority – as well as having the other statutory obligations.

Lord Richard

Where does your money come from?

Martin Fitton

From the Assembly Government, from the Welsh Government. A portion of it comes through the local authorities, but that is money that comes from the national exchequer anyway. That is the basic running body to obviously all the parks that generate income and get grants. Parks have been very good at attracting EU grants and things like this, so their total income comes from a range of sources but the basic core finance comes from that.

I have said what I said about our response and involvement in the Committee structure. I just say in addition to that that we are quite interested in the way in which quite recently the expert support groups have been established for the committees to provide them more backing. We note with interest that these are independent from the executive of Welsh Government. We think that again might be useful in terms of focusing on those issues.

The second thing I wanted to say was that the other thing that has excited us – and no doubt it will excite the rest of the people alongside me – has been the Assembly’s responsibility for sustainable development and the way that was built into the Government of Wales Act when the Assembly was established. No doubt you have heard something about that. It is a real opportunity and a challenge to have a country that has got within its basic government structure a statement that it must do all its work and encourage all its partners to do their work sustainably.

I may say in the first year of the Assembly what really said to us that we had an opportunity for a different way of doing politics was the way in which at one level that whole sustainable development agenda was taken forward quite rapidly by the group, to the extent that they put draft papers on the internet – which I think is very rare – and basically said to people, ‘Knock it down, have a go, and feed in additional ideas.’ The way that whole process was done and the transparency of the Assembly struck as a really positive benefit of working relationships.

I make that point, though we do get the feeling that transparency has reduced as the total structures have got more into stride. I suppose governments as a general principle like to be protective, not to be too transparent because working transparently occasionally increases workload and the public might actually have questions they want to ask, shall we say.

I think that needs watching. As I say, we were very excited by the opportunity to get really involved in that process. I suppose the other example worth interest in this regard is that the Assembly is at present undertaking a review of National Parks. For the first time this is being done separately in Wales. There is already a review of the English parks taking place, so the whole increase in diversity is exampled by that itself.

I have to say that because I work across at a UK level, given the role I have got, and I work very closely with Defra in London in relation to the English parks as well as – to a lesser extent, but increasingly – with the Scottish Executive. The Assembly on the review is in some ways been less open than Defra was in terms of opening their way up to new advice. I think we have got to think slightly harder about those structures.

I am nearly finished, Chairman. I would make two final points. This is partly in response to the questions you have asked about our impressions of the balance between Cardiff and London, and devolved powers. I raise it because the parks are a national designation obviously, insofar as that word means anything in terms of old-speak legislation. In England and Wales it was set up with the same basis to begin with. I have indicated they are starting to diverge. Interestingly, the Scottish Parks – which have only just been established, as you will know, under new legislation because Scotland for many years was one of three countries in the whole of the world that did not have National Parks. They have now got two in Cairngorm and Loch Lomond. Those have been set up under somewhat different legislation, including a direct responsibility for the socio-economic needs of the communities, which we do not have in the same ways a statutory responsibility.

A lot of diversity is developing. Now what you will see when you see our written evidence is that we think that diversity on balance has been positive. There is a great deal of benefit in taking a number of different approaches to the way you deal with matters, and certainly diversity is increasing between the Welsh and English parks, but we are very much providing at least a slight collusion Association. There are quite frequent meetings across the national boundaries between Wales and England, and will be with Scotland as well, looking at common interests all the time, exchanging good practices as new ways develop.

What interests us though is the extent to which we need a maintenance of a UK standard for these designations and the way in which in the end the overall effectiveness of the National Parks should be viewed at more than a Welsh level. I think that raises an interesting set of questions which we have not tried to answer, but it does strike me – and here I speak slightly personally, and you must have heard this from many other people who have given evidence – that okay, you are looking at the Assembly and its work, but in the end we need to be honest about whether we are creating a federal constitution for the UK or not as a polity within the UK.

It seems to me we are setting this thing up by fits and starts, and that is leading to some of the problems we are actually seeing. It would be nice to know in a more formal way where responsibilities lay for a range of options. We think the Assembly should have a greater range of powers, in part because the holistic agenda for sustainable development can only be achieved if they have better control over things like transport and energy.

Just finally, the election showed – which is true about all political activity at the moment – that there is a majority of ‘public un-interest’ if that is the way to describe it in political decision-making, or their ability to be involved in that. We think that is really very sad generally, because sustainability and the whole environmental thing needs the engagement of the public in it. We need people involved in the political process in a way the Assembly has not yet broken through.

My final point is that we feel the Assembly should think harder about its whole way of engaging with the public. We know it has done a lot on that, the Regional Committees have been an attempt to do that, and I attended one in Llandrindod[?] some time ago where I and a dog was the only attendor. We understand the problems but we have got to find new ways of energising the public to be involved if we are going to make the best benefit of a more relevant government for the people of Wales. Thank you very much.

Lord Richard

Thank you very much indeed. Mr Huws?

Iwan Huws, The National Trust

Good afternoon. I am the new Director of The National Trust in Wales since 1 March, a date which I insisted on. For several years I was the Chief Executive of Snowdonia National Park Authority, so my experience of devolution was as Chief Executive of one of the independent local authorities that Martin refers to. It might be useful if spent a few minutes on my experience there, before I give you an impression of The National Trust and what devolution means to that organisation.

Mr Huws (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Roeddwn yn trafod fy mhrofiad fy hun ym Marc Cenedlaethol Eryri. Rwy’n credu mai’r wers bwysicaf yn sgil datganoli yw bod Parciau Cenedlaethol yn y gorffennol wedi eu gosod ar ardaloedd yng Nghymru heb lawer iawn o drafod. Gyda datganoli, mae’r Parciau wedi gallu gweithio’n agosach gyda’u cymunedau rhyngwladol. Felly, roedd hynny’n rhywbeth hanfodol, yn enwedig mewn ardaloedd gwledig Cymraeg eu hiaith fel Eryri. O’r diwedd roeddem yn gallu dweud wrth bobl Gwenovan ac Eryri fod Parc Cenedlaethol yn rhywbeth i Gymru. Felly, yn wleidyddol ac yn lleol roedd hynny o fudd.

Mae fy mhrofiad fel Prif Weithredwr wrth weithio gyda’r Cynulliad wedi bod yn amrywiol iawn. Rwyf wedi rhoi tystiolaeth i nifer o bwyllgorau: Pwyllgor yr Amgylchedd, y Pwyllgor Materion Gwledig a’r Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth. Rwyf hefyd wedi gweithio’n agos gyda Phwyllgor Rhanbarthol Gogledd Cymru a Phwyllgor Rhanbarthol Canolbarth Cymru. Mae hwnnw’n gwestiwn diddorol iawn hefyd, oherwydd rhaid i Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Eryri mewn gwirionedd weithio mewn dwy ardal oherwydd y pwyllgorau rhanbarthol. Yn fy marn i, doedd hynny ddim yn gweithio’n dda iawn.

Interpretation:I was just discussing my own experience at Snowdonia National Park. I think that the most important lesson in the wake of devolution is that in the past National Parks in Wales had certainly been imposed upon in areas of Wales without very much discussion. With devolution, the National Parks have been able to work more closely with their international communities. Therefore, that was something which was crucial, particularly in Welsh speaking rural areas such as Snowdonia. At last we were able to tell the people of Gwenovan and Snowdonia that a National Park was something for Wales. Therefore, politically and locally that was of benefit.

My experience as a Chief Executive working with the Assembly has been quite varied. I have given evidence to a number of committees: the Environment Committee, the Rural Affairs Committee, and Agriculture Committee. I have also worked closely with the North Wales Regional Committee and the Mid-Wales Regional Committee. That is a very interesting question as well, because the Snowdonia National Park Authority actually has to work in two areas in the wake of regional committees. That is something which did not work very well in my view.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

The regional committees did not work well?

Iwan Huws

The point I am making is the Snowdonia National Park Authority and the local authority – and also Gwynedd Council – both authorities had to deal with two regional committees, which I am sure you are aware of. I think if I move on, or else I will eat into my time regarding The National Trust.

The National Trust in Wales of course is not The National Trust for Wales; it is part of the National Trust for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There is a separate National Trust for Scotland. There are very interesting debates that I have already come across within The National Trust regarding the role of the countries and the English regions. The National Trust has recently been through a pretty far-reaching organisational review and I have come into The National Trust following that review. Wales used to be split into two regions; it was reorganised in ’95 following the organisational review. Some argue that Wales has not done all that well out of the organisational review because there are now three territory directors in England covering Wales, the west of England, north and southern England.

There are very interesting issues regarding the future of The National Trust in my opinion, whether The National Trust could become established as The National Trust for Wales. The arguments against this are varied. The National Trust is probably the biggest European conservation organisation. It has over three million members, it has got a huge budget, assets of course that you are all aware of that are in the majority inalienable – I will explain that, as it is an issue I imagine you want to pick up on, because that is due to Parliament.

The membership base therefore, three million in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland – about 70,000 members in Wales. I am in charge with improving that membership base in Wales as well as hopefully improving the image of The National Trust in Wales. I think it is no secret to say that it is seen as an English, middle class, white organisation.

Interesting as well, they have decided to appoint me in Cardiff. The headquarters of The National Trust is in Llandudno. I was recruited to Cardiff. One or two politicians in Wales questioned that. There is no truth in the fact that staff will be relocating to Cardiff, but from outside Wales there is still a perception that you have got to be in Cardiff to network with the majority of Assembly sponsored political parties and also the politicians. That is again part of my brief.

Turning I think to the interesting legislative question of inalienable land, although The National Trust although it is a charity it is empowered by its own Acts of Parliament, passed in 1907, 1937, and 1971. The major issue for The National Trust is that it is possible to own land forever for everyone. That is the basis for the means of the term ‘inalienable’. Basically that means you cannot sell or mortgage that land or make profits on that land. If a compulsory purchase order situation happened here in Wales, then legislation would be triggered in England in Westminster through a special parliamentary procedure. That is an interesting issue I think for you to consider.

Lord Richard

Sorry, run through that again? You say if a compulsory purchase order was made here, by whom?

Iwan Huws

Let us say by a Highways Authority, to actually, for example, put a road through inalienable land. If The National Trust objected to that, the powers would be inactive in Westminster.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

That is just exactly the same position as in Dartmoor. You have a Committee and Parliament is very rigorous in defence of The National Trust. I think I am right in saying that back in 1974-5, the then government was defeated in an attempt to put a road in Southwest England, but it was thrown out. You are in the same position. It seems quite...

Lord Richard

Presumably you would prefer that the parliamentary process took place in Wales rather than London?

Iwan Huws

I am not giving you an opinion. I am just raising the issue which I am sure you would be interested in.

Lord Richard

Why not? Give us an opinion.

Iwan Huws

If I was a director of an independent National Trust, I would give you an opinion.

Lord Richard

Give us an opinion on your own, if you like.

Iwan Huws

I think that is all I wanted to say.

Lord Richard

Dr Stowe?

Dr Tim Stowe, RSPB Cymru

Thank you Chairman. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Tim Stowe, I run the RSPB’s operations in Wales. On my left here I have Katie-Jo Luxton, who is our policy advocate. Her role is primarily to influence what goes on in the Assembly for the benefit of birds and the environment. The RSPB has been working with the Assembly since the Assembly’s formation.

As with Iwan, I work for a body that has responsibilities outside Wales. The RSPB is a UK body, I have counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland who deal with devolved administrations there. Drawing on that experience has been quite useful in formulating our response. You should have received I think an eight-page submission from us. I hope you have had the chance to look at it. I will not go through that in great detail – I do not have the time – but I thought I would just summarise a few bits for you.

First of all, the RSPB is politically neutral and needs to be seen to be politically neutral. Therefore, we have tended – perhaps a little bit like Iwan – to raise the problem without specifying the solution. There are obviously some areas where we could set out some potential solutions. We believe that for the benefit of the environment in Wales and in order for Wales to fulfil its obligations under Section 121, the sustainable development clause of the Government of Wales Act, more Primary legislative powers are required for Wales. How that is done is obviously a matter for debate, but we think at the minute Wales cannot develop sustainably in the way that many people here would like because it does not have sufficient powers to do so. Some of the powers may indeed exist and they simply have not been exercised, for whatever reason.

In our submission we do refer to the relationship between Whitehall, Cardiff, and Westminster as being an area of lack of clarity. We have a parliamentary staff I think of four at the UK level, in England, we have three in Scotland, one in Wales, and one in Northern Ireland. For a voluntary organisation that is quite a lot of resource to put into the political process. We are not clear on a number of issues about how the powers of the Assembly can or should work. That is simply because we cannot get answers to the questions that we ask. I think it is important therefore that some clarity of these powers is made available both to organisation such as our own, public or generally.

We have also got to have the structures and mechanisms in place to allow the parliamentary processes to work, both in Cardiff and in Westminster. Indeed, I will refer to some of the examples in a minute where we think the parliamentary processes are not benefiting Wales, or where Wales may suffer as a consequence.

There seems to us to be three potential options that could be explored to address some of these difficulties. One of them would be a structural change in the relations between the devolved administration in Cardiff and Westminster, so that there is increased parliamentary time for issues that relate to Wales. Another option would be some form of enabling legislation, perhaps once a year – or two or three times a year – whereby the Assembly could as of right, as opposed to with Whitehall’s permission, propose some legislative changes that give it more power or enable it to do more things. Thirdly, the obvious option is simply to give more primary legislative power to the Assembly itself.

I do not think we have a view as to which of those is the best one. It may not be that there is a best solution, but certainly those are the options as we see them.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

Could you just clarify a little bit what you mean by ‘enabling legislation’?

Dr Tim Stowe

As we understand it, it would be possible for a piece of legislation going through the House of Parliament to have clauses in it which simply empower the Assembly to have further power. For example, it could add to the schedules in the Government of Wales Act simply to give you additional powers over the following pieces of legislation.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

Are you suggesting an annual one? In other words, a sort of bit-by-bit?

Dr Tim Stowe

At the minute, Wales bids for a bit of primary legislation and has or has not been successful. You will know the figures as well as I do. In order to make that more effective and not to be at the whim of Westminster’s priorities – or England or the UK’s priorities – and focusing on Wales’ priorities, then if there was a specific slot once a year or twice a year or four times a year whereby parliamentary time was set aside for matters solely relating to Wales, we see that as a potential way of resolving that particular issue. I am not suggesting that is the way; I am saying that is a way. As we understand it at the minute, it is possible to do it.

If I can just move on to some of the specific issues we have raised, I think we gave five examples. They are not an exhaustive list by any means, and I would like to add one which is not in our submission as well.

Ted Rowlands

These are A, B, C, D, and E of your paper, is it?

Dr Tim Stowe

That is right. There is common land in Wales, marine environment, renewable energy generation, integrated transport, and green taxes. The one I would like to add is about building design. When we wrote to you we did not have enough information. Sorry, there is one other as well: sustainable procurement policy. Perhaps I could just pick out common land first and building design second. If you wish to question us further, please do so.

Common land is very important in Wales. It covers about 9% of the surface area. It is very important in rural areas for agricultural management and practices. Large amounts of it are environmentally pretty good but not always environmentally in good condition. There is a lot of frustration – as I am sure many of my colleagues here on my right will know about – around common land issues, in terms of getting control of grazing practices, for example. The UK Government proposed a policy statement and review of common land legislation and set up a working group, of which I was a member – as indeed was Martin – organised by Defra to look at some of the options about how we might improve the management of commons.

Details of what was discussed are not particularly important, but what happens next is. Defra had assigned between six and eight civil servants to this group of meetings; the National Assembly assigned one. Defra has got a Bill drafting team in place and were saying at the time of the discussions that primary legislation would come through for England and Wales hopefully in 2004-05. Talking to Defra in the last few days, they are now suggesting that is going to be delayed and may drop off the agenda for England or the UK.

In England common land is about 3% of the surface area. It is nowhere near as important over most of the country, with the possible exceptions of Cumbria and Cornwall. The chances of any legislation coming forward for Wales from England I think are receding. If you would have asked me this question two months ago I would have given you a slightly different answer, because then we were being told something was going to happen. But even with Alun Michael in charge of this particular area, I do not think this is likely now. This means that the problems we have got – commons management, issues in the National Parks, and in the wider countryside problems with sites of special scientific interest, and the rest – are likely to go unresolved. It is an issue on which I think there is quite a lot of common agreement in Wales between the unions, local authorities, the environmental agencies, the voluntary sector, and so on.

Ted Rowlands

Could I jump in there? We heard some evidence this morning on this. Are you proposing that there would be a separate legal framework for common land in Wales or that you want to implement legislation that would be England and Wales but you just want to get it faster in Wales? Is it a different legal framework you wish to establish or do you just wish to legislate earlier?

Dr Tim Stowe

As I understand it, there is almost no difference in the legal framework between England and Wales. A Bill written in England covering England and Wales would do the job, but it is the priority with which it is going to be addressed.

Ted Rowlands

So it is a matter of timing rather than content?

Dr Tim Stowe

Yes. There may be some small tweaks and detail, but on the whole it is going to be much the same. That is quite an important issue, if I may Chair, because the capacity of the civil service in Wales to deal with the complexities of the human rights legislation that would be involved in this piece of legislation, their capacity may not be up to it. In many ways it is advantageous to take advantage of the larger civil service in England. There is a positive side. The downside is we have failed to get this legislation for the last six years. It may be another six years before it comes through.

Ted Rowlands

Thank you, Sir.

Dr Tim Stowe

May I just move on to another issue that we have not put in our submission? This is to do with the design of buildings. Obviously in order for Wales to pursue its sustainable development agenda, to ensure that the landscape is protected, to reduce our energy consumption, and a whole range of reasons that have direct and indirect impacts on the environment, it would be extremely useful for the Assembly to be able to say that buildings should conform to certain designs which are energy efficient, waste efficient, and so forth. Our understanding is that at the minute it cannot do that.

There may be provision under the Building Act (1984) for secondary legislation regulations to be passed by the Assembly, but we are not clear whether that would allow sufficient powers to be given to the Assembly to do what we think is necessary. It would certainly require primary legislation to link the building regulations to the planning system. If you think about it, linking those two would be fundamental. It would clearly be highly significant if you could ensure that the planning applications that were coming forward were to build waste efficient, energy efficient, landscape happy housing in the appropriate places.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

What is ‘happy housing’? Is that a term of art?

Dr Tim Stowe

If you feel it is appropriate. I was searching for another way of saying buildings in the landscape which are not unsympathetic to its character. I am sure you can picture many buildings in the landscape which do not really fit. I think Chairman I will stop there. I have just picked on two of the examples. Thank you.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

On your last point, would it apply to agricultural buildings, including farms?

Dr Tim Stowe

Very much so. It is something that could be applied as widely as you wanted to apply it. I am not wanting to change the planning legislation. What I am suggesting is that building regulations which specify the types of materials, insulatory properties, energy use and things in those buildings be linked to the planning legislation.

Lord Richard

Mr Davies?

Huw Davies, The Forestry Commission

Thank you. Good afternoon, I am Huw Davies. I am Policy Officer for the Forestry Commission. In giving evidence I would first of all like to start with what the Forestry Commission is, because again we are a strange body. We are a cross-border public body constituted under the Forestry Act. The last full revision of the Forestry Act was 1967, with various part revisions subsequently. The Forestry Commission was established in 1919. A bit like Iwan was saying earlier on, the Forestry Commission has been viewed in Wales as something which has been imposed on Wales. It is like an imperialist power from England or Scotland put on to Wales to buy the land and grow trees which people do not necessarily want. That is how it had been viewed.

With devolution, things have changed quite considerably. As far as forestry is concerned, they have changed considerably for the better. In response to the first question, yes there has been a very positive impact of devolution on forestry. Much greater attention has been paid to forestry and its interaction with other social, environmental, and economic issues; and the chance to make appropriate policy in forestry for Wales alone, rather than for the UK as a whole. But of course we are still a UK Forestry Commission, constituted under the Forestry Act.

Even so, there has been considerable devolution within the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission has adapted its position to devolution and has split itself into three separate bodies in England, Scotland, and Wales. Our funding comes entirely through the Wales vote in the National Assembly in Wales. There are a few things which are reserved to a GB level: plant health, research, and international issues. They are funded out of the England vote, but everything else in Wales is funded out of the National Assembly.

Though we have forestry commissioners who are UK forestry commissioners, we essentially work as another department of the National Assembly. We work directly to Ministers; in our case, mostly to the Minister for Rural Development, though in part of our portfolio we work to other Ministers as appropriate. We are a very strange body, partly inside the National Assembly and partly outside the National Assembly.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

What is the size of your funding?

Huw Davies

The size of our funding is about £32 million a year.

Tom Jones

Can you explain the difference between when the Secretary for State for Wales held court on Forestry Commission issues in Wales, since then have these funds that have come to you via the Assembly been transferred from a central pot? If so, how were they calculated?

Huw Davies

Right. The calculation is essentially historic. We used to get a vote for the Forestry Commission running in three countries from Treasury; it was a single vote out of the budget of what eventually became Defra. It was under the old MAFF budget. That was split internally by the Forestry Commission into its various regions, and Wales was a region. Subsequent to devolution we bid for funds like any other department in the Assembly. We bid alongside the agriculture department and our bid goes up via the Minister for Rural Development to the Finance Minister. Now all of our funds come in that way. The amount of funding we had was largely historical; it was largely the regional amount that Wales had out of the UK pot. It started off from that and we have subsequently argued about the benefits that are created by forestry in Wales and the costs which are needed in terms of the management of the Assembly estate. I will go on to explain about that.

We were largely viewed as this imperialist force, but...

Lord Richard

May I interrupt you, before I forget the point? I do not quite understand the position. You get your money from the Assembly, but has power been delegated formally from Westminster down to the Assembly so that you are now responsible to it?

Huw Davies

Power has been delegated. Previously the Ministers – that includes Secretary of State for Wales, similarly in the other countries – had financial responsibility for forestry and responsibility for directing the Forestry Commission, but the actual accountability was with the forestry commissioners in law – and still is in law. We are a very strange body and there is a tension between the legal powers of the forestry commissioners and our ability to act for Ministers.

Lord Richard

What I do not understand is if the Assembly has not had powers specifically devolved to it, how can it give you £32 million?

Huw Davies

It has had powers devolved to it. In the Devolution Act, the powers that belonged to the Secretary of State for Wales were devolved to the Assembly. And the powers of funding came with that. They have powers of funding and they have powers of direction over forestry commissioners.

Lord Richard

Do you now deal directly with the Assembly?

Huw Davies

We deal directly with the Assembly. Mostly we work as a department of the Assembly, so we work directly to Ministers.

Ted Rowlands

Even before devolution you worked to the Secretary of State, or one of his junior Ministers.

Huw Davies

Yes, usually a junior Minister in Wales. That is who we worked to nominally, but of course previous to devolution the Secretary of State and the junior Ministers had huge portfolios and were not necessarily very interested and concerned in forestry issues. Now there is a lot more interest, particularly because the Devolution Act contains Section 121 on sustainability and the National Assembly actually owns the Forestry Commission woodlands, so they own 6% of the land surface of Wales which is covered with trees – the Assembly’s wooded estate – they have a duty to deliver sustainable development on that land. They take that very seriously. We have had a lot more interest in forestry issues and forestry policies than we had previously. Because of that, we have been able to develop bespoke policies in Wales which are suitable for Wales particularly, rather than the whole of the UK. That has meant, as far as forestry is concerned, that devolution has definitely seen an improvement in the way the forestry relates to its place in Wales.

Vivienne Sugar

If your strategic direction is agreed by the Assembly, your plan, your targets, your budget; what is your relationship to the UK Forestry Commission?

Huw Davies

We are still part of the UK Forestry Commission. I am employed by the UK Forestry Commission. It is a very strange legal relationship.

Ted Rowlands

It is not different than it was in 1965. I was around at the time. I was a Forestry Minister in 1969-70 and I had a lot of interest in forestry, by the way.

Huw Davies

That was before my involvement, at least. We have seen a considerable increase in the interest paid to forestry, but it is the same political reality that the Assembly has just taken over the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The additional Section 121 on sustainability responsibility has helped because it has focused minds on the purpose of forestry and it has widened the purpose from just growing trees, just growing timber, to delivering a whole range of benefits to the public. Again, the Assembly has developed its own policy on woodlands and set that out in a strategy for trees and woodlands: Trees and Woodlands for Wales, which was published a couple of years ago. We now have our own independent Wales policywhich the Forestry Commission is charged with implementing.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

Does that include a scheme whereby the Assembly exercises its functions to promote sustainable development? That is under Section 121. And do they keep the scheme under review and in the year following the election consider whether it should be remade or revised? Are they going to do that?

Huw Davies

We certainly have to keep it under review. I do not think the second part, in the year following the elections.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

It has not occurred until just now. Presumably, as it is Section 121.2 of the Act, it will have to be done.

Dr Tim Stowe

You are correct. The Strategic Policy Unit is planning to do that and they have set up a review that is about to go out to tender to review the progress made in the scheme so far in the first four years. When the results of that are brought back and evaluated, then they will go to Ministers with possible amendments to the scheme. The scheme will have to remade and have to before the plenary.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

When you say it is out for tender, do you mean it is out for consultation, or that different experts have been asked to...?

Dr Tim Stowe

No, the contract to do the reviewing of the effectiveness of the scheme in the first four years is being put out to tender at the end of next week. I sit on the board reviewing that contract, so I should be reviewing the bids the week after that.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

Going back to forestry, because of Section 121 you in Wales – foresters, so to speak – have to think always about sustainable development in a way that your colleagues in the Forestry Commission in England or whatever it is in Scotland do not have to think about.

Huw Davies

They do not have to demonstrate that they have thought about it in such a way, no. The difference is pedantic. Legally, yes. It has taken us through most of this first Assembly period to get the arrangements for the further devolution of the Forestry Commission sorted out and we are about to have established a concordat between the National Assembly and the Forestry Commission – or forestry commissioners, legally – a Section 41 agreement which actually delegates powers from Ministers to our officials.

Lord Richard

The impression you give very much is that on the whole you are happy with the relationship.

Huw Davies

On the whole, yes.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

But you do say that the Assembly and its committees – I think in your paper implied and in the other papers it is implied much more strongly – that the committees so far have not carried very far the intention in the Voice for Wales white paper that there should be better supervision of bodies like yours.

Huw Davies

Quite so. We have not had I think scrutiny as well as it should have been done, I would say. There could have been more scrutiny on us and perhaps as the Assembly develops, we will get a better challenge. Challenge is helpful on both sides, particularly so with the regional committees; I do not think they have been challenging at all.

Huw Thomas

Martin said virtually the same. Without giving away the line of questioning to which you feel most exposed, what are those areas that you feel that in a sense the Assembly should have scrutinised you in?

Huw Davies

It should have scrutinised more, rather than just the overall policy, how we are implementing it – particularly on the Assembly’s own estate, in terms of value for money. There has not been a great deal of scrutiny.

Huw Thomas

What about the Audit Committee?

Huw Davies

The Audit Committee has only just started to become involved with the Forestry Commission, because again until last year when we had proper devolution within the Forestry Commission itself we were under the National Audit Office, not under the Audit Committee of the Assembly. Now we are.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

But the Audit Committee of the Assembly, as well as encouraging the Audit Office to do a strict audit, are able to be much more challenging and seeing whether good value is being got for public expenditure.

Huw Davies

We have not had the scrutiny like that yet.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

They are very challenging.

Lord Richard

I am not surprised you are happy with the relationship with the Assembly.

Vivienne Sugar

Can I go back to the question of powers? We have got the list supplemented by Tim Stowe. Both you and Martin mentioned the need for more powers to support environmental sustainability. Is there anything more specific from the National Park point of view that you would want to add to this list?

Martin Fitton

Yes. It seems to me that really the political structures we are in the midst of now have been created as a result of a series of compromises rather than a natural assessment of what powers are needed to make a legislature effective. There is no clear reason politically why Scotland should be dealt with differently than Wales. It seems to me – I am repeating what I have already said – if we are to take forward the sustainable agenda, and that is a really very difficult agenda as we know. Nobody has managed to crack this yet. It is in the end what Wales will be known for globally if it manages to crack it, but it is a big agenda.

That cannot be done without some better control over those other things that impact on sustainability. I think in that sense we would see wider powers, but also then the Assembly to be given more resources to do the job properly. What you are hearing I think from everybody along this table is that we are sympathetic to the Assembly, but we are feeling the Assembly does need more resources in terms of intelligence for backbench members. They need to be able to perform their role more effectively. In practice with us, they were tending to focus on individual problems to do with planning quite often, rather than saying to us, ‘Look, we have an agenda for sustainable development. How can the parks actually manage to achieve this?’

Vivienne Sugar

Earlier we were trying to distinguish between existing powers that needed to be clarified, whose responsibility those were; where there might be a need for more powers, but where they could be passed through UK Parliament if there was sufficient parliamentary time; and is there anything you can cite which would make the case for the Assembly itself having the primary legislative powers?

Martin Fitton

We could turn to the example of common land. We would [inaudible], but the fact of the matter is common land is more important to Wales than England, as it happens.

Vivienne Sugar

That is timeliness, is it not?

Martin Fitton

It is about time; it is also about detail. It is also about the opportunity to deal with an agriculture which is different and much more central to the Welsh economy than agriculture is in England. That is a statement of fact that the Assembly should be able to get a better handle on, it seems to me. In the end it is going to be scrutinised by Brussels anyway, is it not? Nobody is going to have a free-for-all in this development of policy.

Ted Rowlands

Martin, are you saying that if you were a legislature you would believe that there should be Assembly power to amend the 1995 National Parks Act in a different way, offering a different statutory basis to it with different standards – or not? Are you saying, ‘We need legislation for England and Wales, it is stuck at the moment in parliamentary time, so let us have the Welsh version of what should be an England and Wales Bill?’ You want an England and Wales Bill really, but you could do it quicker if the Assembly gets it? Are you saying that is your line, or do you think there is a different agenda that would lead to the need for a different kind of primary legislation to cover National Parks?

Martin Fitton

It is a very good question. I suppose I would tend to respond the way Tim was doing. Let us use the example of the socio-economic powers. I have already said the Scottish parks did differently anyway. The ’95 Act, as you know which applies to Wales and England, had this very old codicil to not a statutory responsibility but as it were an obligation to take into account the needs of the communities and rural economy, and then the rather odd words on the face of the Bill ‘without significant expenditure’.

It is proposed in the English review that that is removed from the Act anyway, and no doubt that will happen in Wales, but it does strike me that in the end we might well want to run – here I am expressing a personal opinion – the Welsh National Parks in a way that embeds it more effectively in what is a more truly rural country than England. There might be some slight differences in the way in which the parks are used, but it is a very difficult question to answer in practice. I would not be opposed to diversity developing, as long as there are structures to make commonalities for the overall objective of sustaining the environment.

Lord Richard

What does that mean?

Martin Fitton

The example that we are seeing now in England, because of the growing regional agenda, they are making a very interesting mix of things: they can have assemblies or they can not have assemblies, depending on what they want. The RDAs – I am very much involved in the RDAs in England – are saying ‘If you have set us up, we want to do our thing differently, not necessarily at the behest of central English Government in this regard.’ We are saying yes we want to work with the RDAs in England, this is the English part, but we also want to maintain some sort of hegemony. I do not know the answer to the question.

Lord Richard

I was talking about sustainability actually. You talk about sustainability and you say this is one of the great distinctions between Welsh policy and English policy is the obligation to maintain sustainability. I want to know what it means.

Dr Tim Stowe

I think one of the specific manifestations of it would be that when you are proposing to develop a policy, a big specific development, or move Wales forward; you make sure that whilst ensuring you have got economic growth, you have also got social equity and social harmony, and you are also not damaging – preferably you are protecting and enhancing – the environment. Traditionally we have not been particularly good at promoting economic growth and at the same time benefiting the other two areas. We have tended to look at them somewhat in isolation and occasionally – not always, but occasionally – economic development has been at the cost of the environment. Our reading of Section 121 is that Wales has a greater responsibility now to progress all three of these sorts of areas of development of society. That manifests itself through what Huw said and indeed through National Parks and The National Trust.

Iwan Huws

It might be worth adding that the Welsh Assembly Government is actually trialling sustainable development in the three Welsh National Parks through the Environment Development Fund, which is a £1 million fund.

Lord Richard

You say it is trialling it. What is it actually doing?

Iwan Huws

All of the three Welsh parks are spending £250 million a year on a myriad of projects which actually tries to define an answer to your question.

Ted Rowlands

Under the sustainable development process would you have ever sunk a pit in the middle of a wooded valley of Merthyr, for example?

Martin Fitton

We might, and we might have said that about open cast mining for example. That was a real argument ten years ago, before we decided to close down the coal industry completely – in a way that has left resources under the ground that probably could have been used sustainably.

Dr Tim Stowe

May I just throw the question back and ask: does the Assembly have the powers to develop a deep mine in the Welsh valleys? I do not think it does.

Ted Rowlands

If you had planning permission. The planning powers would be entirely devolved into the local authorities and then to the National Assembly.

Dr Tim Stowe

One of the interesting things in energy generation is that we do not have powers for example to do the planning.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

Some years ago there was a Select Committee report on sustainable development. One thing it shows is that it is extremely desirable, but also that it is extremely complicated and difficult to do. This is partly I suppose why everybody has not climbed on the bandwagon as yet.

Could I go back to one point you made? You criticised the Assembly for not showing enough expertise on your matters. Long ago the European Communities Committee, in the Lords had a very active environment subcommittee led by Lord Ashby and Lady White later on. They had to depend on specialist advice, including a Welshman Professor Edwards. They became well-known in Brussels and they were the terrors of DG-11. My point to you is: if you did this, it does cause you a great deal more trouble. Have you considered this? I am not saying it is not a good thing to do, but it would cause more trouble.

Martin Fitton

I would use the word ‘challenge’ rather than ‘trouble’. That leads me to the other point I wanted to make, because Huw is right that no doubt the Forestry Commission for England and Scotland occasionally think about sustainable development. Indeed, we are all obligated under EU treaties. You can devolve England how you want, Wales is different. What is different in Wales is we set ourselves this challenge in 1999 to say we are going to do it differently by putting it on the face of the basic working procedures of the Assembly.

It is understandable we have not delivered that as well as we could, because of the complications as you say, but we are not going to deliver it effectively if there is not a more holistic ability of the Assembly to work on all the levers of the issues that affects. In the end, it is worth trying because Wales is a small country. Here is a personal view: I actually believe in small government. I actually believe you can make decisions more easily along a canvas.

If you look around this room now, we all know each other in a sense, do we not? I mean Tom was on a committee with me 20 years ago; I gave this man his first or second job. This is in the nature of what Wales is. That has got some advantages. We have a real opportunity to make that work effectively here and we will miss the opportunity slightly unless we do strengthen the Assembly. That is about numbers and it is about resources and it is about giving them expert backing, is it not? When legislatures get expert backing, they start to become really very effective.

Tom Jones

Can I ask a question? Since devolution, have you found – as Welsh representatives of Welsh NGOs – that you might have been marginalised with other departments in Whitehall, in the sense that they might believe ‘this is to do with Wales, feed your views into the Assembly’? Has that been a confusion? A resource implication issue? You mentioned the issues with Defra, for example, on common land. Are there other examples of policy development on a UK basis?

Huw Davies

There are certainly resource implications for dealing with things on a GB level as well as a Wales level. The Forestry Commission has had to triplicate some things because each of the administrations wants to feed into – and has a legitimate reason to feed into – some of the international work. There is a body of work to do with making sure we network properly within the Assembly divisions and then represent that at a collective GB level, which we would only have done from our headquarters previously. So there is a resource implication.

Iwan Huws

Can I try and answer? That question is directed at NGOs by Tom. I have come into The National Trust without any baggage whatsoever. I have worked in Wales throughout my career in the public sector and it is an interesting experience working for a charity. It has different relationships naturally with government. I have seen various debates that have been going on throughout the past three years concerning the organisation of The National Trust.

Since devolution, obviously Wales is in a strong position to argue for more resource. You could argue that any UK-based organisation has central resource to deal with policy initiatives from government in Westminster. That is not replicated in NGOs in Wales. I am sure it is the case in the RSPB. It is certainly not in the case in The National Trust that I have inherited. There is a handful of people dealing with policy that are expected to deal with a whole array of policy initiatives from Westminster. That is an argument for the NGOs to deal with a host/parent body.

Dr Tim Stowe

Can I comment to Tom? Undoubtedly having the Assembly here in Wales has allowed the RSPB in Wales to develop and expand its role. As Iwan referred to, it used to be that policy was made at head office and it was just scattered across the UK. Well that does not happen anymore. It does not happen in Scotland or Northern Ireland either.

You asked about the response of civil servants to Defra. When Martin and I were on this working group with Defra, they seemed to take any comments we made like any other member of the committee; there were no prejudices at work against Wales. But what we have found is that if we talk to some civil servants in Defra about matters that affect Wales, they will turn around to us and say, ‘You need to go and talk to the Assembly.’ Then if you go to the civil servant in the Assembly, they may well say, ‘Well, I am not sure that is within my power,’ or ‘It is not a high priority for us.’

I do not think we have seen any significant divergence of legislation yet between England and Wales, but we are seeing a divergence of priorities and a divergence of the discussion in importance of issues, which if pursued down the line – as I said to Mr Rowlands earlier – I think would ultimately lead to things not happening in Wales which are a high priority and other things could happen; I think CCW has given you an example of some hedgerow regulations that were approved in England but not in Wales. It would appear that the Assembly did not know that those regulations were going through. There is definitely a glass wall that has gone up within the civil service which is making the ability of organisations like ours, for example, because we have good relationships with our counterparts across the border; it is quite easy to expose these, but it is not very easy to solve them.

Katie-Jo Luxton, RSPB Cymru

Can I add that, from my experience, trying to raise issues of primary legislative interest to Wales – for instance, common land or any other topic – it is very difficult to find the right forum to have that discussion. Whether we might be passed from the Assembly to Westminster or Defra – or whatever department we are talking about – because it is a primary legislative issue, yet again when we reach that forum, ‘Well, it is Wales; perhaps you should be doing this through the Assembly.’ But then trying to have those discussions through the Assembly with a UK department, there is perhaps not the resource being given to it Wales at the moment, or the experience on it.

That seems to be quite a difficult discussion. I wonder whether Wales could lose out because we are not having the discussion about primary legislative issues anymore at all, or in a much decreased role.

Vivienne Sugar

To go back to the question of regional committees, because you mentioned that at the beginning, and the problem of the fact that the National Park boundaries do not fit the way that the regional committees are set up. Could you describe how constituency Assembly Members and list Assembly Members can get involved in National Park business? Is it only through regional committees or do you have any other mechanisms?

Martin Fitton

We are very keen to engage with the Assembly for these reasons, because why call on an organisation if we cannot present the way in which we can help take forward the various Welsh agendas? We do work as much with the Environment Committee as the regional committees. I was previously Chief Executive of Brecon Greenfields, and my experience with the regional committees were that they were not really that strong a vehicle for dealing with ideas. Whether that was because they were not promoted enough to the public as a channel, because that is the intention of them. It may be that Iwan can say more about his experience of regional committees in Snowdonia, but in our case it was through the central Environment Committee – and remains our main contact for Parliament.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

The white paper says in section 420, ‘Regional committees will be advisory bodies and will not have functions or decisions dedicated to them.’ That is pretty explicit and effectively is setting out a talking charter.

Iwan Huws

I have various experiences with the regional committees over the last four years. Obviously the North Wales regional committee is the only statutory committee that the Assembly had to create. There seems to be a slightly more business-like impression at that committee rather than the Mid-Wales committee, which is the other one I have experience of. Again there is varied experience by the three Welsh Park Authorities. There is also varied experience in the park authorities’ relationship with the economic forum of Wales which replicate the regional committees. For example, I was an observer on the North Wales and the Mid-Wales partnership, whereas the Pembroke National Park Authority chief executive was not invited to the Southwest regional economic forum. There are issues there.

On your point regarding experience of list versus first past the post AMs, certainly what I found as chief executive of a planning authority post-devolution was that you had to deal with all sorts of politicians in the first days of devolution. You had MPs, AMs, and list AMs representing constituents, particularly on planning. Arguably that is the highest profile for park authorities is the planning role.

Quite often if a constituents did not have any joy with the MP, they might go to the AM, and then finally to the PR AM. Depending on the calibre of that PR AM, they quite often got into varied discussions with all three politicians – and the European politicians, if it was a serious issue.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

You put me in mind of the Cardiff Barrage Bill, on which the RSPB had very vigorous views. They were expressed at Westminster to the select committees determining the Bills. How did that experience, which was factual and happened, how would that compare with your relations with the National Assembly now? Not obviously on the Cardiff Barrage Bill, but on the same underlying issues.

Dr Tim Stowe

If all the necessary powers were vested in the Assembly instead of in Parliament, then the same process would apply. I think we were involved in the process for 14 years, which gives you an idea of how long it went on. Fundamentally, it would be the same process of trying to influence the decision-making.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

Would you get a better hearing because it was nearer?

Dr Tim Stowe

I think we would have got a much better hearing in Cardiff and I think we would also have got a more informed debate. I think also if it were to happen now, I would be surprised if we got the same outcome.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

Can you put this more clearly to somebody who is very ignorant of it?

Dr Tim Stowe

I think the discussion of the key issues, which was exercising the people’s residence of Cardiff, the discussion of those issues was held in London. If that discussion had been going on in Cardiff, I think there would have been a lot more expression of those views directly to Assembly Members, and that would have influenced the debate. I think my comments about the outcome are that if the Assembly has its scheme to promote sustainable development, destroying a site of special scientific interest right under its nose and not putting in place any renewable energy scheme whilst its doing so, does not seem to me to be a solution that is compatible with its founding Act. That explains it specifically.

Ted Rowlands

I wonder. You might have had two Cardiff hearings for and two Cardiff hearings against, as you had in Westminster.

Peter Price

Could we take up the legislative issues again? It seems to me that you have directed our attention somewhat differently and rather importantly. Where we have very often been searching here in our questions on the need for primary powers has been whether there is a need for different legislation in Wales. Much of what you have said this afternoon has been to suggest that that is not really where we ought to be looking.

The case you have put for primary legislative powers seems to me to have been based on two other things. The first is that because of the differences between Wales topographically, demographically, and in all other respects, because of those differences inevitably there will be different priorities, and those priorities will not be given expression to so long as it is in Westminster.

The second is, particularly linked to sustainability, the need to integrate policies and that that integration requires in many cases legislative powers. That is the other reason for doing it. You are putting a quite different case from looking at the need for different legislation. Is that a fair summing up of the burden of what you have more or less jointly put forward this afternoon on legislative powers?

Martin Fitton

I think it is, although I think by the nature of things you would get some diversity and some different outcomes in some cases, as we have just discussed, or possibly some different outcomes. Simply by focusing on that you are going to move slightly away. At the end of it, the question then is whether you can live with that. Well, nobody uses the word ‘subsidiarity’ anymore, do they? It has gone out of fashion for some reason, but it was an ugly word for a rather good idea: that actually the right place to make decisions should be found and then that is where the decision should be made. Frankly, on a lot of these issues it seems to me the decisions could be made in Wales. Why not?

Huw Thomas

We have met other charities and we talked about ‘leapfrog’. In other words, it is more difficult to get a piece of legislation through Westminster, but once you start getting that policy – whatever it is – adopted by Wales or by Scotland, extra pressure gets put on Westminster to come into line. Is it the case that it is simply that there is a different emphasis required in Wales, or is it that in the process of developing across the whole UK it makes sense to tackle certain areas on a different time-scale?

Dr Tim Stowe

I am struggling to think of an example of where leapfrogging has happened. There is a good example of where it has not happened. If you take the Better Environment Scheme, which is a Wales-wide scheme, England does not have an England-wide scheme and yet Tir Gofal is held up in Europe as being a flagship scheme. In Wales it seems to be extremely good and extremely impressive. I cannot think of an example of leapfrogging having happened. I can think of one example where it has not happened where I would have liked to have seen it happen. It does not mean to say it is not a good thing though, I suspect.

Katie-Jo Luxton

An example of where it might be a good thing might be, for example, on marine issues, where for many years conservationists have been struggling to improve powers over the conservation and the management of the marine environment; not just the British Isles but the entire world I think really. Again, in Wales where we have had significant marine disasters, where we have experienced some of the downsides on our environment and spin-offs on tourism, and that sort of thing, we have not yet brought in significant ways to deal with our marine environment, in terms of managing it.

I think I have read Mike German’s response to powers over the Sea Fisheries committees. That is one of the mechanisms by which to introduce management of our marine environment. Again, we need this for the whole of the UK and wider, but I think that Wales could have a good case for looking into the initial way of how we might do that in Wales. I am sure that would certainly be used as a template by others, but there is also an equally good case to say this should be done on as wide a basis as possible.

Ted Rowlands

Picking up on subsidiarity and looking at Dr Stowe’s examples in Paragraphs 5b and 5e, are these examples of subsidiarity or not? Let us take a marine one. I think marine, outside the 12-mile limit, is reserved even in the case of Scotland to the UK?

Dr Tim Stowe

Yes, I think it is.

Ted Rowlands

Would you wish a devolution of the marine environmental issues beyond the 12-mile limit?

Dr Tim Stowe

I think to go to the specific, in the case of the Sea Empress, which went aground off Pembrokeshire, it was taking a specific route which the subsequent enquiry suggested it should not have taken. We do not have powers in Wales to change that route and until the UK decides to either give us powers or change the routes, tankers will continue to take a line that increases the risk of a grounding. That is within the 12-mile limit and that would be something that we could do that would have a specific benefit for us.

To some extent, tankers going into the Thames estuary, for example, if there was a major spillage there would not have the same socio-economic impacts as happened in Pembrokeshire. The consequence of spilling oil is identical; the consequence on the economy of the country is very different. I think something like that is a specific example of where if we had powers to act, I would argue we should act because it is in our interests and it would be a priority for us.

Ted Rowlands

Can you develop your thinking on eco-taxes?

Dr Tim Stowe

Yes, there is the suggestion that we actually need to set up a body to review this but I think you will probably be aware of what happened in the Republic of Ireland with the tax on plastic bags which has resulted in a drastic reduction in the sale and use of plastic bags in the Republic of Ireland. With our current issues surrounding the lack of progress on recycling waste, and the whole waste strategy, and the costs to society of recycling and reprocessing waste, something as simple as that would fit in well with all our existing policies. It would fit extremely well under our sustainable development remit, but we do not have the power or authority to do it. I would like to see it spread across the UK. We are discussing Wales and it seems to me that this is something Wales could actually say, ‘We have a specific issue here to solve,’ in terms of our waste issues are perhaps the worst in Europe; they are certainly the worst in the UK. We could start to do something here.

Ted Rowlands

Has the Waste Bill before the Lords not been constructed legislatively to accommodate the different targets and things on devolution? In fact it is very much devolved in terms of targets, as I understand it.

Dr Tim Stowe

Yes, but we are failing to meet existing government targets on recycling. Yes, we can continue to do more of the same, but what we are suggesting here is innovative in that we are suggesting a specific change in the way we are approaching the issue.

Ted Rowlands

So you would be taxed differently on pesticides in Wales than across the border?

Dr Tim Stowe

I think it will be useful to look at how practical and how viable such an operation was. I am not suggesting we should do it; I am suggesting we should set up a commission or an organisation that would actually review it. I think it would have some potential benefits. We know the situation of GMs in Wales. I would like to see us move to more organic farming in Wales. This might be an appropriate mechanism to enhance the progress on that.

Lord Richard

Can I thank you very much for coming? - I am very grateful to you indeed for coming.