Commons Sitting of 28 February 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 7 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    EU Growth and Stability Pact
    Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement on the operation of the EU growth and stability pact. [35742]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I request to answer that question at the end of Question Time, so that we may have a fuller debate on it.

    Stamp Duty
    Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on stamp duty exemptions. [35743]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): New investment, new businesses and new jobs are the key to regenerating our high unemployment communities. In the pre-Budget report is a special measure to help the slowest growing and highest unemployment areas of Britain. The Government have abolished stamp duty in 2,000 wards in constituencies throughout the country, for all transactions for homes and business properties worth up to £150,000, leading in the first three months to 5,000 claims for purchases worth £450 million—an average saving of £900 per transaction. As my hon. Friend is aware, the qualifying areas include two wards in her constituency. In the Budget I propose to legislate so that we can take more business property transactions out of stamp duty in these areas.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The measures certainly have been welcome in the two wards in my constituency and the three wards in neighbouring Grimsby. I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that he will extend these welcome exemptions, but will he also consider including more of the deprived
    816
    wards in that exemption? Residents in the neighbouring wards to the two in my constituency would certainly like to benefit from these measures as well.
    Mr. Brown: The definition that has been used for choosing the wards is that they are the 15 per cent. most deprived wards in the country, and that has led to the choice that we have made, based on the most up-to-date information. My hon. Friend has welcomed our plans to extend that scheme involving business properties, and I hope that they will be welcomed on both sides of the House. What we are proposing here is a move from the old strategy, which was either providing girocheques to people who were unemployed or providing only property subsidies. The stamp duty exemptions go side by side with changes in policy to reduce VAT for conversions in high streets, for transferring businesses into houses; the community investment tax credit, which we are introducing in the Budget; and the community investment fund. All these measures are designed to help the creation of small businesses and the development of economic activity in communities that have hitherto been high unemployment communities.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Have the United Kingdom Government made a state aid notification on stamp duty exemptions to the European Commission, and if so, what response has the Commission made?
    Mr. Brown: We believe that our proposals will be acceptable to the Commission. We will go ahead with our proposals on that basis. I will announce further proposals in the Budget on that basis. The hon. Gentleman should be particularly pleased, because 42 per cent. of areas in Wales qualify under our proposals. I emphasise that the help that is available now to start small businesses in those areas, including advice and help from the Small Business Service in England and the relevant services in Scotland and Wales, should enable us to bridge the gap whereby, in Britain, only half as many small businesses are created as in America, and only one small business is created in the poorest areas for every six created in the richest areas. Therefore we will go ahead with our proposals.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that, welcome though it is that there has been a 1 million cut in unemployment and that we have the highest level of employment throughout the country, he is right to concentrate on those areas that need to be revitalised after the massive attacks—pit closures, textile closures and so on? Will he therefore bear it in mind that the new £24 million development in Shirebrook in the north Derbyshire area is important, as is junction 29A, which will revitalise three constituencies in north Derbyshire? Will my right hon. Friend, together with what he is about to announce today, ensure that that type of programme continues, because there will be not only economic benefit but electoral benefit from acting in this fashion?
    Mr. Brown: Our policies for both stability and economic regeneration have led to the creation of

    817
    1.3 million more jobs in this country over the last five years. At the same time we have the lowest inflation and the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years.
    I should have thought that among the Conservatives there would be at least one Member wishing to intervene to thank us for introducing these measures because the shadow Chancellor has four wards in his constituency that are benefiting from the stamp duty exemption, and that is one of the reasons why we have cut unemployment in his constituency by 50 per cent. over the last five years. It is about time that the Conservatives abandoned their policy to get rid of the new deal and supported our policies for both stability and prosperity.

    Management Costs
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: What studies his Department has undertaken of the management costs of (a) PPPs and (b) conventionally procured public sector projects. [35744]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Studies have focused on overall value for money rather than the specific components to which the hon. Lady refers. National Audit Office reports have shown, of course, that that value for money is being achieved. Management costs in private finance initiative projects do of course cover items like whole-life maintenance, which are not typically provided for in conventional procurement.
    Mrs. Calton: My question is about the cost of monitoring London Underground's public-private partnership. Transport for London has argued that the attribution process for London Underground's PPP is so complex and bureaucratic as to be practically unworkable. Given the Treasury's intimate involvement with London Underground's PPP, what estimate has the Treasury made of the cost of monitoring the 1,000 service disruptions and 350 facilities faults a week? Is the Chancellor aware that London Underground will have to monitor the performance of the infracos down to the amount of time it takes to fix a light bulb? How many people—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question is far too long.
    Mr. Smith: As was committed by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the House regularly receives reports on the costs of the consultancy involved in carrying forward London Underground's PPP. If we are talking about value for money, as we must, and the much-needed modernisation of the London underground, let us not forget that the PPP involves £16 billion of investment during the first 15 years of the project—the equivalent of six Jubilee lines will be constructed—and it is £2 billion cheaper than the public sector comparator. That is much-needed investment for London. London Underground remains responsible for the trains, ticketing, stations and has overall responsibility for safety, while we give world-leading companies the responsibility of carrying out that much-needed investment to world-class standards. Let us get on with it.
    Ross Cranston: In addition to comparative costs, capital costs, economic efficiencies and so on, do not we also have to taken into account the Keynesian aphorism:
    "In the long run we are all dead"?
    In Dudley, we would be on a waiting list for a new hospital; as a result of the PFI, we are getting a new hospital now.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. The crucial thing is not only that the PFI and the PPP are bringing forward much-needed investment, but, with this Government, that investment is additional to conventional public sector investment, whereas the Conservative party used it as an excuse to cut public investment.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If the Treasury is so proud of its PPP programme for London Underground, why was a Treasury Minister not sent to the inquiry into that very subject of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions? Have the Government got something to hide?
    Mr. Smith: There is a well established precedent that we do, of course, attend Select Committees, including the Transport Sub-Committee, when the matters under consideration are the lead responsibility of the Treasury. The DTLR has lead responsibility for the items discussed in the case to which the hon. Lady refers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a very good report to the Committee.
    Mr. Tom Harris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a very successful—in fact, an award wining—PPP in Glasgow under which 10 of the city's secondary schools have been completely rebuilt and a further 19 have been refurbished? Can he tell the House what plans the Government will put in place to safeguard the security of tenure and the wages and conditions of those employees who move from local authority employment to that of private companies?
    Mr. Smith: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those responsible for introducing such a radical improvement to the school facilities available to young people in Glasgow. Those schools are among the 500 throughout Britain that are benefiting from PFI investment. On the important point that he makes about staff, not only will the Government act, but we have already acted to improve the pension protections for staff in guaranteeing the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and in mandating consultation with the staff involved. That will continue to be the case.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the draft contracts for London Underground's PPP contain absolutely no provision for terminating the contract if an infraco fails during the first seven and a half years? Is he happy to have no termination rights in that draft contract?
    Mr. Smith: I am satisfied that, as I said earlier, the PPP represents best value for money. It enables us to mobilise

    819
    world-leading engineering expertise satisfactorily, as it must be to complete the much-needed investment in the London underground. The people of London will be very interested that the Liberal Democrats want to carry on scoring political points about that, whereas we want to get on with the investment.

    International Debt
    Mr. John McFall: If he will make a statement on his recent initiative for relief of international debt. [35745]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): This week, Ghana reached decision point, qualifying for $3.7 billion of debt relief from the international community, including the United Kingdom, writing off 100 per cent. of the $200 million of debt owed by Ghana. That means that 25 countries—21 from Africa—will benefit from $60 billion in debt relief with potentially $100 billion of debt relief in prospect. Our plans support greater flexibility in debt reduction as part of a global new deal. In return for countries pursuing corruption-free policies that will encourage stability, trade and investment, we will raise development aid worldwide in cash terms and as a proportion of national income.
    Mr. McFall: I commend the Chancellor on his speech in New York in November and on his Marshall plan for global poverty alleviation. In his New York speech, he mentioned the sheer lack of investment in poor countries. On my visits in the past few years to Zambia in Africa and Peru in Latin America, I have seen regression on the ground instead of progression. Will the Chancellor say what structural changes should take place with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to ensure that countries that are grindingly poor at the moment have a better future?
    Mr. Brown: Our proposal is for a trust fund of $50 billion a year. That would mean the effective doubling of international aid so that we can meet the 2015 development targets, whereby every child of primary school age should have free education, infant mortality is cut by two thirds, and, at the same time, poverty is halved. As for the changes that are necessary, first, we believe that countries must pursue stability-oriented polices and must therefore agree to new codes and rules for governing their financial, monetary and economic policies. Secondly, we must push forward on the Doha trade agenda. Thirdly, we must create a better environment for private as well as public investment. In return, we will make available additional resources. The next stage of that is the Monterrey conference in Mexico—the finance for development conference—at which I hope that other countries will also put up additional cash to support our proposals.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I welcome the Chancellor's commitment to assisting developing countries. Will he say more about the corruption-free policies that go hand in hand with relief of international debt? He may not know that the International Development Committee is visiting Ghana next week. We have seen throughout Africa and elsewhere that corruption
    820
    makes poor people poorer and harms the poor people in the world. Without corruption-free policies, international debt relief will have little effect on their lives.
    Mr. Brown: I hope that we will have all-party support—and that that may be reflected in an intervention from the Opposition Front Bench—for what we are trying to achieve at Monterrey. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that one of the factors that has blighted the development of Africa and has made it difficult for people to justify additional aid, has been the amount of corruption that has taken place in a number of regimes throughout that continent. One of our proposals is designed to remove that possibility in the future as far as possible. Each country must agree to abide by the international rules of the game, and publish exactly what they are doing in their monetary, fiscal and general financial policy. Their accounts must be transparent and available for people to see. Additional expenditures or the siphoning off of money can therefore be investigated properly by the authorities. That demands a bigger role for the IMF and the World Bank in the surveyance of the financial activities of those countries and in insisting on structural reform.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also agree that our domestic legislation to prevent people from being able to claim bribes as part of tax relief is another measure that offers a way forward. I hope that there will be all-party support for what we are trying to do at Monterrey. That means that in return for pursuing those policies, we are prepared to put more money into solving intractable problems in Africa, which, with the international community working together, we can begin to address.
    Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the heavily indebted poor countries debt relief conditions were based on an export growth rate of about 6 per cent. The World Bank's report stated that the growth rate was only about 4 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will press for greater flexibility in the debt relief conditions to ensure that we do not end up with re-emerging problems of debt unsustainability?
    Mr. Brown: That is why we insisted at the last meeting of the IMF committee that we include in our communique the commitment to be far more flexible on the terms under which debt reduction is available in future and to take account not just of the loss of exports by many countries, but of the general decline in world trade. The year before last, world trade grew by about 13 per cent.; last year, it barely grew at all, and the position of countries in Africa worsened as a result. That is one flexibility that we are including in future attitudes to debt relief.
    The other flexibility relates to countries that are moving out of conflict. In Africa in particular many countries are denied debt relief because they are in conflict. Countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Sudan which have the possibility of coming out of conflict could be more readily eligible for the debt relief that is necessary for restructuring. That is our second proposal for flexibility in debt relief.
    Mr. David Lidington: I first welcome and support the Chancellor's efforts to develop policies on international debt relief. His work will command the

    821
    support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Can he confirm that the World Bank report published just last month forecasts that the 24 poorest countries will, after debt relief, still have to pay about $¼ billion more in debt service in 2005 than in 2002? Can he also confirm that the sustainability of the repayments depends, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) explained, on forecasts for growth and exports, which a number of expert observers think are over-optimistic? How certain is he that the present debt relief initiative programme will have the beneficial results that we all want?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the debt relief initiatives. With the Monterrey conference next month, the IMF and World Bank meetings in April, the children's conference organised by the United Nations in May and the Johannesburg summit in September, this is the year in which we must make progress on meeting the millennium development targets. Whatever support comes from all parties in the House to back up the efforts of churches and non-governmental organisations throughout the world will be significant.
    The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the latest World Bank report. It is not necessarily the case that the figures, which he correctly says will be difficult for the poorest countries to meet, will be realised. The greater flexibility that we are offering in debt relief, the chance to create the new trust fund and the greater effort that the Prime Minister is putting into providing more funds for Africa could come together to reduce the burden that countries are under in meeting debt relief.
    I acknowledge the efforts of the previous Chancellor to move the debt relief policy forward, but when we started on debt relief in 1997 only one country was likely to get it; now 25 receive debt relief. When we said $100 billion could be relieved, people said that that was impossible, but $60 billion has been agreed. If conflict countries such as Sudan and the DRC can come into the debt relief process the figure would be $100 billion. I am optimistic that if we work together we will make progress on an agenda that is vital for dealing not just with poverty and poor economic prospects in such countries, but with ill health and illiteracy among millions of children.

    Primary Education
    Valerie Davey: What steps he is taking to encourage his counterparts in other countries to provide funding to ensure that all children worldwide receive primary education by 2015. [35746]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): On 12 March, the Government will launch the Commonwealth education fund. It is shocking that 113 million children still do not have the chance to go to primary school. Two thirds of those are girls and in the Commonwealth more than 70 million children are still denied education. By helping civil society to strengthen the quality of national education plans, the fund will support the achievement of universal primary education in the poorest Commonwealth countries. That is also supported by £600 million in education funding from the Department for International Development. Our proposals
    822
    for a new international trust fund would mean $10 billion to $12 billion extra a year from the international community to promote universal primary education.
    Valerie Davey: I thank my right hon. Friend for the positive response. Many of my constituents write regularly about global inequalities and their concerns about that. They would want me to take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for his international leadership. Are the G8 educational task force and the World Bank committed in their support of primary international education to ensuring that it is provided equally for girls?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the issue. I applaud her work as a constituency MP in raising it locally and her work internationally, as she worked in Africa for some time. Our proposals would help most of all the two thirds of girls who are denied primary education. They form 80 million of the total denied primary education at the moment.
    It is worth pointing out that there has been some progress in recent years, which is a signal for us to want to do more. In Uganda, primary education numbers will double as a result of the debt relief provided. In Malawi, enrolment has increased by 60 per cent. since 1995. It is moving forward in many other African countries, too, but it is still too little, and we will not meet the target of every child receiving primary education by 2015 unless we put more funds in now.

    The G8 initiative taken at the Canadian summit will be important to that, but at the end of the day, each donor country must be prepared to put more resources into overseas aid development. We will do that, and we hope by our actions to persuade others to do so. I am grateful for the chance during these questions for the House of Commons to debate these important issues.
    John Cryer: I also welcome everything that the Chancellor has said this morning. However, does he accept that primary and secondary education and other public services have been deeply damaged by the IMF structural adjustment programme, particularly in Rwanda, where there was a direct link between the IMF's intervention and the destruction of education and the massacres that followed? Will he assure the House that he will bring maximum pressure to bear on discussions with the IMF and other international bodies to ensure that such measures are not repeated?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He should know that the operation of the structural adjustment facility by the IMF has been abolished as a result of a decision that it took over the past period. We now have poverty and growth facilities, and plans have been drawn up that involve the communities as well as the Governments of individual countries. More money is being put into education and health as a result. Our target is a far higher proportion of each country's budget going into education and health. As a result of pressure from my hon. Friend and many others, the old structural adjustment policy has been abolished, and the IMF and the World Bank are working together under the new proposal to tackle poverty.

    Euro
    Mr. David Laws: On what date his Department started the preliminary technical work for evaluating the five economic tests for euro membership. [35747]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): After the first detailed assessment of the five tests in 1997, we said that our policy was to prepare and decide and to make an assessment early in the Parliament. The assessment of the five economic tests has not started, but last year we set out the necessary next stage of preliminary and technical work. That preliminary and technical work includes the cyclical behaviour of the United Kingdom economy relative to the euro area and relative responses to economic shocks; the mechanisms by which product, labour and capital markets adjust; the impact of the single currency on the costs and availability of capital; the effect of the single currency on financial services; and the impact of the single currency on trade, competition, productivity and employment.
    Mr. Laws: I thank the Chancellor for that very full answer. On the investment test, will reform of the growth and stability pact be necessary before Britain is willing to sign up to the euro? I ask specifically in relation to the document that he is launching today about reform in the European Union. Does paragraph 1.13 of that document mean that reform of the growth and stability pact is a pre-condition to entry to the euro?
    Mr. Brown: There is no sixth test. I have just explained the five tests and the work that we are doing to examine them. I hope that all Members would agree that the growth and stability pact is in need of improvement in three separate areas. First, it should be reformed to take account of the economic cycle. In other words, there should be flexibility when the world economy and, indeed, the European economy are in downturn. Secondly, it should be reformed to take account of public investment, which matters to us here because health, education and transport investment are absolutely crucial. However, that matters throughout Europe in the rebuilding of the infrastructure in many countries.
    Thirdly, the pact should be reformed to take account of debt sustainability. What is relevant to a country with a debt to GDP ratio of 110 per cent., such as Italy or Belgium, is not relevant to a country such as Britain where, as a result of efforts in the past few years, the ratio has been reduced to 30 per cent.
    I believe that those reforms are gaining support within the European Union, and we will continue to push them. Our assessment will be made on the five tests that were set down in 1997, repeated by the Prime Minister in 1999, and repeated in the document to be published later today.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important not only that his Department continues the preparations for the evaluation of whether the tests are met, but that the House is well informed? Will he affirm that the preparations for the euro group—comprising those who lead on Treasury matters for all the parties represented in the House—constantly seeks ways in which we can prepare for joining the euro
    824
    in the event of a yes vote in the referendum? It is not a group that promotes the euro, but one that monitors progress in banking, retailing and the public sector.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the group's most important other function is to make sure that the Government do not spend money on promoting the euro? Given those facts, is it not a wonder that still the Conservative party is the only party in the House that has not joined the committee and did not come to the meeting this week?
    Mr. Brown: When we set up the committee, I sent an invitation to all political parties in the House of Commons. The standing committee on euro preparations, which I chair, includes the Governor of the Bank of England, the head of the Confederation of British Industry, the head of the British Chambers of Commerce, and representation from small business and the British Bankers Association—all relevant bodies concerned about economic and financial matters in relation to the euro and economic policy in Europe.
    To complement that committee, a standing committee was set up in the House of Commons. We sent an invitation to sit on the committee to every political party in the House of Commons. The invitation was accepted by every political party with only one exception: the Conservative party. That is because the Conservative party has ruled out discussion of those issues as a matter of dogma. That everyone else, including the whole of British industry and British commerce, is prepared to discuss those issues shows how far apart the Conservative party is from business today.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Is the Chancellor aware that most of the business men who support entry into the euro believe that it will first be necessary for the Government to engineer a devaluation to a more competitive exchange rate? Is he also aware that every Government who have devalued the pound have been defeated at the subsequent election?
    Mr. Brown: He should know. It is difficult to take lectures from the Conservative party about the running of exchange rate policy given the ignominious exit from the exchange rate mechanism that occurred when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet. [HON. MEMBERS: "You supported it."] Now the Opposition blame us when we were in opposition for the policies that they pursued in government. I know that it is the fate of the Opposition to become irresponsible, but the Conservatives should take responsibility for the policies that they pursued in government, when the shadow Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) were members of the Cabinet.
    The fact is that we will assess the five tests and report to the Cabinet; if we make a yes decision, we will then report to Parliament and the country. For the first time, a decision on those matters is to be made after fundamental, rigorous and comprehensive examination of the economic issues. One thing is clear about 1990 and the ERM: the Conservatives made no examination of the proper issues.
    David Taylor: If the German fudge shows us anything, it is that sustained cyclical convergence is impossible without deep-rooted

    825
    structural convergence. Does the Chancellor agree that, given the huge differences between us and Europe in trade mix, housing finance, pension finance and company finance, we are further away than ever from meeting the economic convergence criteria that he so frequently spells out? Are we not therefore several years—perhaps it will not happen until deep into the third term of an Administration led by him—from a referendum that will resolve those matters?
    Mr. Brown: I have always said that I will not give a running commentary on the five tests—nor on any other matter. The five tests include whether sustainable and durable convergence can be achieved, as well as an examination of employment, investment and flexibility—all the matters that are relevant to a proper and rigorous economic assessment.
    We are determined that the decision will be made in the national economic interest. The real divide in politics is between us, who would make a decision based on the national economic interest, and the Opposition, who have ruled out a single currency even if it were to be in the national economic interest. Theirs is an irresponsible position.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Who is in charge of all this—Mr. Ed Balls or the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain)?
    Mr. Brown: I shall present the economic assessment, as I presented the 1997 statement to the House of Commons and chair the standing committee on euro preparations. It is a matter for the Treasury to present its economic assessment and we will do so, as we said, before June 2003. The fact of the matter is that the statement that we made in 1997 remained unchanged in 1999; it is exactly the policy that we are pursuing now and it is the policy of the entire Government.
    Joyce Quin: As my right hon. Friend knows, more than half our exports of goods go to other European Union countries. Does he acknowledge that in certain regions the figure is far higher? For example, in my area in the north-east the figure is 76 per cent., which is perhaps why many businesses there favour entry into the euro. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that it would be crazy, given those facts and, when it takes place, a satisfactory assessment, to rule out membership of the euro, as I assume is still being advocated by the Opposition?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is right; 750,000 businesses trade with the euro area. It is crucial that we have the best relationships between the United Kingdom and Europe. It is for precisely those reasons that we have said that the decisive test—it would have to be clear and unambiguous—is the economic case for entry; that is what we have to examine and that is why the detailed work that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) is being done rigorously and comprehensively. The assessment will be made public at the end of that time.
    My right hon. Friend is right; it is a mistake to rule out on grounds of dogma what may be in the national economic interest. I have noticed that, during this Question Time, whereas on issues of urban renewal and
    826
    everything else no Conservative Members have sought to intervene, on the issue of Europe just about every Conservative Member wants to intervene. The leader of the Conservative party has said that Conservative Members will not go on talking endlessly about the euro because they are not monomaniacs and have more than one issue, but it is not clear today that they do.
    Mr. Michael Howard: I am most grateful to the Chancellor for providing me with my cue. May I begin by welcoming him on his return to the Dispatch Box? He will know that he has the sympathy and personal good wishes of hon. Members from all quarters of the House.
    Is it not extraordinary that this morning the Chancellor should play ducks and drakes with the Order Paper, deferring consideration of Question 1 without any explanation and for a reason about which we can only speculate?
    On the question asked by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), does the Chancellor agree with Gus O'Donnell that the economic case for joining the single currency can never be clear and unambiguous?
    Mr. Brown: Mr. Gus O'Donnell has said that he has no recollection of saying those things. As for Question 1 on the Order Paper, as I understand it, we are responding to a request from the Conservative party that we should deal with it at the end of proceedings. As for the whole question of the euro, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is important to look at those matters in detail. We have said that the economic case must be clear and unambiguous, which is why in July last year, and then in September, we published a list of all the studies that we are undertaking.
    I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have thought that that was a sensible course of action. Of course, the difference is that when the Conservative Government joined the exchange rate mechanism, they did so as a political act without taking in hand the necessary economic preparations. They did not make the necessary economic assessment and the result was their ignominious exit from the ERM in 1992. The shadow Chancellor must take full responsibility for the actions of that Government.
    Mr. Howard: Indeed, I do, but it is important to note that that decision was supported by all parties in the House, by the Chancellor personally at the time, by the Liberal Democrats, by the Confederation of British Industry and by the Trades Union Congress. I certainly do accept my share of responsibility.
    Mr. Gus O'Donnell was quoted as saying:
    "Economics can never be clear and unambiguous",
    and he has not denied that statement. Is it not the case that all the evidence shows that joining the single currency would be likely to have devastating consequences for the jobs, homes and livelihoods of the people of this country? Why does not the Chancellor accept that, put this distraction to one side, and concentrate on dealing with the crisis in the public services of our country?
    Mr. Brown: Mr. O'Donnell has made the position clear. On the question of the euro, our policy, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, is exactly the

    827
    policy that we set out in 1997. It was repeated in 1999. It is repeated now by me. The reason that that is the right policy, and I can show it to be the right policy, is that we are doing the work that is necessary for the economic assessment to take place.
    There is one school of thought in this country that says, "We would rule out a single currency, even if it were in the national economic interest to join."
    Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: That is exactly the position of the Conservative party, and the shadow Chancellor himself has ruled out the single currency in principle. He said it when he stood for the Conservative leadership in 1997. I know that it got him only 12 votes at the time, but he said that then, and his leader has repeated ever since that the Conservatives are against the single currency in principle. What they are saying is that even if it were in the national economic interest to join, they would not do so, as an act of dogma.
    Our position is the sensible position. If a single currency is in the national economic interest, and proved to be so by the five tests that we are assessing at present, we will make a recommendation to the country. That is the sensible position for jobs, business and the economy as a whole. The Conservatives are locked in the past and we should take no lectures from a Conservative party that was responsible for our ignominious exit from the ERM, which the country will never forget.
    Denzil Davies: On the question of the devaluation of the pound, does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of engineering such a devaluation would be to put up domestic taxation, thereby achieving a better balance between monetary and fiscal policy?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend was in the Treasury in the 1970s. There were a number of Budgets at that time which put up taxes, but I believe that he did a very honourable job in the Treasury at that time. As regards our policy, we will announce our tax measures in the Budget, we will make the economic assessment in relation to the euro at the appropriate time, and all the facts and figures will be brought before the House. The assessment that we must make is whether a single currency would be good for investment, whether it would be good for jobs, whether there is sufficient flexibility in the economy, what would be the effect on the financial services, and whether there is sustained and durable convergence. Those are the questions that we are examining and on which we will make an assessment.
    Matthew Taylor: First, may I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to the Chancellor? He is welcome back and we feel strongly for him.
    The Chancellor has repeatedly said that he does not want a running commentary on the economic assessments. That message does not seem to have got through to his colleagues at the Foreign Office. Could he therefore end the running commentary by making clear the time scale
    828
    on which those tests are in fact being carried out, as compared with the Foreign Office version, with which he seems to disagree?
    Mr. Brown: The position is as I set out at the beginning of this Parliament and in my speech to the CBI in October: we will make an assessment, which will be completed before June 2003, and we will publish the results of that, as we did with the 1997 assessment.
    The Liberal Democrats are in a difficult position. Only a few days ago, the Liberal Democrat leader named the day on which he thought there should be a referendum. One can adopt the position that we will join irrespective of the assessment of the economic tests. One can name the day, and the Liberal Democrats have also named the exchange rate. Surely the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), in his new exalted position, calling himself shadow Chancellor, in competition with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—[Interruption.] Yes, it is a good competition. The one respect in which they are not competing well is with those on the Labour Benches. In his new position, surely the hon. Gentleman should consider this issue: if we decide that the single currency is in the national economic interest, it should be on the basis of compelling evidence, and the five economic tests that we have set down are the right basis on which we should make the decision. Far from naming the date and the exchange rate, the hon. Gentleman should look at the more detailed issues that are involved before that decision can be reached.

    Terrorist Organisations
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement on the progress made by Customs and Excise in tracing the assets and bank accounts of proscribed terrorist organisations. [35748]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Customs and Excise is one of the many investigative and law enforcement agencies that are actively engaged in the fight against terrorism—in particular, by disrupting and cutting off the finances of terrorist organisations. Since 11 September, the Government have ordered the freezing of the assets of more than 200 individuals and 100 organisations, undermining and preventing access to the sources of terrorist financing. We will continue to give priority to closing down all sources of such financing.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and pay tribute to her and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the leading role that they are playing. She will be aware that one of the difficulties faced by the international community is the different interpretations of what is a proscribed terrorist organisation. For example, the UK rightly proscribes Hezbollah, but the European Union does not as yet do so. Can she tell the House whether the moneys seized from these terrorist organisations are being retained by the Treasury? Would not a more sensible course of action be to ensure that the money seized from al-Qaeda is invested in Afghan reconstruction and that money from Hamas is used to help

    829
    Palestinian poverty reduction? I believe that such measures would be constructive and very welcome indeed.
    Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As he knows, it is incredibly important to track down terrorist financing, whatever its source. The UK remains committed to doing exactly that, but of course, we also remain committed, for example, to the reconstruction of Afghanistan—one of the good causes to which he drew attention. We stand ready, together with our neighbours, to provide all the assistance and humanitarian relief that Afghanistan needs.
    My hon. Friend also drew attention to the use of funds that are frozen by the Treasury. Those funds are not the property of the UK Government and we certainly cannot decide arbitrarily to use them for good causes. However, we must, in conjunction with the international community, regularly review whether such freezing orders should still apply. I can tell the House that the UN sanctions committee decided last month to review the asset-freezing sanctions against the central bank of Afghanistan. It is our intention to work urgently and closely with the new, legitimate Afghan Government to return the bulk of the £70 million that had been frozen against the country's Government previously.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not reprehensible that a terrorist organisation that is probably the most murderous in the world and has killed tens of thousands of people and kidnapped many more, including most recently the brave presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt in Colombia—namely, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—is not a proscribed organisation under the terms of the Terrorism Act 2000? Nor is any murderous terrorist organisation in Latin America, such as Sendero Luminoso, proscribed under the 2000 Act. Is that not a scandal, and does it not fatally inhibit the vital work of Customs and Excise in freezing the assets of this murderous organisation, which is involved in drug dealing and kidnapping?
    Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that a UN sanctions order must be carried out by consensus among the 15 members of the Security Council; it is, in effect, a political decision to freeze the assets of individuals, organisations or states and can be appealed against in the usual way by individuals or organisations. We must gain an international consensus in that forum to take such measures. That is what we are committed to doing against any organisation, individual or state in respect of which we can prove a link to terrorist financing, and we remain at the forefront of international efforts in that regard.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will be aware that the distinction between proscribed and other terrorist organisations is a shambles anyway, because non-proscribed organisations are also in receipt of such funds. We should congratulate those forces in our country that are doing something about this matter. May I press her on whether there have been discussions at an international level dealing with fiscal crime—primarily, such crime is money laundering in the name of terrorism
    830
    and organisations—and on whether we can now obtain extradition orders to bring back to this country those who are guilty of some of the crimes that we are fighting?
    Ruth Kelly: Before 11 September and subsequently, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of measures in the fight not only against terrorism but money laundering in general. We are working with the G7 in the international arena to develop measures and encourage countries to fulfil international standards against money laundering and terrorist financing. We are also working with our overseas territories and Crown dependencies to ensure that they meet the tough international standards.
    Hon. Members know that we completed consideration of the Proceeds of Crime Bill last night. It will enable our authorities to take tough action against money laundering and reduce the complexities that were inherent in the system. We are therefore working domestically and internationally to crack down on money laundering and terrorist funding wherever it occurs.

    Investment
    Paul Holmes: What estimate he has made of the level of public sector net capital investment as a proportion of national income over the period of the first comprehensive spending review. [35749]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The figures, including the projection for the current year, which is the last year covered by the first comprehensive spending review, were set out in the pre-Budget report. They show that public sector net investment increased from 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1998–99 to 1.3 per cent. in 2001–02. That is an increase of £5.6 billion in real terms.
    Paul Holmes: I am sure that the Chief Secretary agrees that the Chancellor was right to criticise the Conservative Government for their shameful level of investment in public services between 1992 and 1997. However, Treasury figures show not only that the average percentage of GDP invested in public services was 1.5 per cent. a year from 1992 to 1997, but that that average was 0.6 per cent. between 1997 and 2002. That is less than half the Conservative Government's investment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Conservative record was shameful, the Labour record in the past five years is a disgrace, and that it is no wonder that public services such as the national health service and transport are in such a mess?
    Mr. Smith: We inherited a legacy from a Conservative Government who cut net public investment year on year. In our first five years, we doubled net public sector investment. This spring, such investment will be twice the level that we inherited. The hon. Gentleman has experienced the benefits of that in his constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said earlier, the junction 29A development has brought £47 million of new investment to the area. Shirebrook has meant £27 million of investment, generating thousands of

    831
    jobs in north Derbyshire. It is the biggest investment in the area since the pits were sunk, thanks to Labour government, not Liberal Democrat opposition.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Hon. Members could bring an unending list of projects worthy of capital expenditure to my right hon. Friend's attention. I shall present a petition for funding in my constituency to him next week. Nevertheless, doubling percentage expenditure, which my right hon. Friend mentioned in his initial answer, is an exceptional achievement of which we should be proud. The development of junction 29 is a phenomenal improvement to provisions in Chesterfield, North-east Derbyshire and Bolsover. Those improvements are much needed and are now being provided. Will he simply refuse to listen to moaning minnies who put an alternative viewpoint?
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and commend him on his energetic efforts on behalf of his constituency. That is resulting in the benefits and schemes that he described. The contrast is simple: it is between a Government who believe in public investment and are substantially increasing it and a Conservative Government who cut it by an average of 15 per cent. a year in their last term in office. We are increasing it by 40 per cent. a year. That is a sharp contrast between Labour investment and Tory neglect.
    Mr. John Bercow: Since 1997, the Government have raised an extra £130,000 million in taxes, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that the lowest levels of net public investment as a share of national income since the second world war have occurred in the same period. Why?
    Mr. Smith: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have started by thanking us for all the tax cuts that this Government have brought in, notably the 3 percentage point cut on business. On levels of public investment, I make no apologies to the House. It is the Conservative party that should apologise. After five years of Labour in government, public sector net investment will be more than double the level that it was when the Tories left office. The reason for that is that we are increasing that investment, whereas they were cutting it. The Conservatives cut net investment by an average of 15 per cent. a year in their last term; we are increasing it by 40 per cent. a year.
    The people of this country are seeing the benefits of that investment not only in the programmes to which I have referred, but in the 245 modernisation schemes for accident and emergency units throughout the country that had been neglected by the Conservatives, in the 17,000 schools that have had repairs carried out, and in the 50 road schemes that are now under way. There is a very clear contrast between our investment and the Conservatives rundown.
    Lynne Jones: The Chancellor told the House a little while ago that Government debt was now around 30 per cent. of gross domestic product, compared with the Maastricht criterion of 60 per cent. of GDP. Does my right hon. Friend agree,
    832
    therefore, that the lack of availability of public capital should not be a factor in determining the value for money of private finance initiatives?
    Mr. Smith: The private finance initiative and public-private partnership programme is additional to conventional public sector investment, which, as I have said, we have doubled during this spending review period. On the level of debt that we inherited, the 44 per cent. of GDP that the Tories left us was crippling the country through debt interest repayments. It is because we took the tough decisions that we did, and because we will stick to our tough fiscal disciplines, that we are saving £8 billion a year on the cost of debt interest. That is enabling us to make the record investment in public services from which health, transport, the fight against crime and our other front-line priorities are benefiting.

    Business Taxation and Regulation
    Patrick Mercer: What recent representations he has received from the British Chambers of Commerce regarding business taxation and regulation. [35750]
    John Baron: What recent representations he has received from the Federation of Small Businesses regarding business taxation and regulation of small businesses. [35751]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): As is normal in the run-up to the Budget, the Government have received a number of representations from business organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce.
    Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Whenever I am in the chambers of commerce in either Retford or Newark, I receive constant questions about the burden of red tape that is being imposed on small businesses. May I remind the Minister of the Chancellor's promise given before the last election? He said:
    "We will not impose burdensome regulations on business, because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down."
    Has that promise been kept? Has the level of red tape risen or fallen?
    Dawn Primarolo: The answer to the—[Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was going to get up again. He bobs up and down all the time, and he confused me. If he will allow me to answer the question first, I am sure that he will be able to come in later.
    The promise has been kept on a number of fronts. First, on the lowering of tax burdens and the lowering of pressure on small businesses through regulations, the Government have cut the tax bill for those small businesses and made a number of reforms. For example, we announced in the pre-Budget report the flat-rate payment for VAT, which will be enormously helpful to 300,000 small businesses. Furthermore, the Carter review, which is currently out for discussion, takes forward the

    833
    discussions on how we can ensure that small businesses can operate efficiently with the minimum amount of requirements on them to comply with legislation.
    Mr. Baron: As the number of new business regulations introduced by the Government stands at a record high, and as the findings of a survey last year by the largest employment firm in the country showed that employers spend on average the equivalent of one and a half days of the working week administering employment law and dealing with personnel issues, will the Minister accept the CBI's charge that the Government are a regulatory Government?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman does not mention that many regulations are about decent wages for employees, paid holiday and time off for employees to attend to family matters, and that many of them are requested by businesses to help them in their environment. The Government must strike a fair balance between the rights of employees, which are good for small and large businesses, and ensuring that businesses can operate efficiently without the burden being too great.
    As the hon. Gentleman well knows—he might care to check the Inland Revenue website—a massive programme of regulatory reform is under way. It is examining everything that is requested of business to see whether it is still necessary, whether it can be streamlined and how we can ensure that the rights of business and employees are respected, and that businesses can flourish in an environment that is suitably regulated, not over-regulated.

    EU Growth and Stability Pact
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement on the operation of the EU growth and stability pact. [35742]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The United Kingdom believes that a prudent interpretation of the disciplines of the stability and growth pact should take into account the economic cycle, sustainability of debt and the important role of public investment. Our proposals for that and for reforms in European labour, product and capital markets on which we seek to make headway at the Barcelona summit are contained in the paper on European economic reform that the Treasury published today. Reforms are necessary so that Europe can successfully meet the challenge of large-scale employment creation, internal enlargement and global competition. Copies of the paper are already available in the Vote Office.
    To increase competitive pressures and drive down prices for everyday goods across the European Union, we propose measures to open up markets in energy services, agriculture and the financial sector, and for a more rigorous, modernised competition policy and a reformed state aid regime. To tackle the low levels of venture capital in the EU and the high costs of banking for both individuals and businesses, we urge the creation of a single financial services market and a risk capital action plan to improve the provision of finance to small and start-out companies. To adopt a more strategic approach
    834
    to research and development across the EU, we should develop better links between the science base and industry, and introduce an innovation-friendly Community patent.
    We propose a debate at Barcelona on how best to reform EU labour markets, to gain the conditions for full employment and to tackle social exclusion. To expand transatlantic economic partnerships, we propose a Ceccini style report that would set out in detail the basis for growth, prosperity and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic, including a wide-ranging effort to end the remaining industrial tariffs multilaterally, remove unnecessary non-tariff barriers, and increase competition and develop more effective ways of pre-empting damaging transatlantic trade disputes.
    Those measures complement our proposals to reform the stability and growth pact. As the White Paper says, being in Europe and leading in Europe is right for Britain and for British interests.
    Mr. David: I thank my right hon. Friend for his full statement, and congratulate him on advocating a more flexible and prudent interpretation of the growth and stability pact. Does he agree that what is required is sustainable economic growth throughout the whole of the European Union? Will he give more details about precisely what the Government will argue for at the Barcelona summit?
    Mr. Brown: If the world economy is to grow faster over the next few years, every continent must make its contribution. America must keep markets open, Japan must have structural banking reform and Europe must have the modernised labour, capital and product markets that we suggest. If we are to move ahead, there should be the reforms in the stability and growth pact that we propose. One of the messages that I took from the last European Council summit, where we were successful in overturning the Commission's recommendation against the United Kingdom and other countries, is that most countries now see the advantage of taking into account public investment, debt sustainability and the economic cycle in making decisions about what is essential for stability in the fiscal regime. I believe that Europe is ready to make reforms in that direction as well.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Is it not utterly disgraceful that a substantial White Paper such as this, setting out what the Chancellor clearly regards as an important policy initiative, should not be the subject of a separate statement in the House, allowing a proper opportunity for questioning and scrutiny and subject to all the normal courtesies such as advance notification of what is contained in the statement? That would have enabled us to begin to engage in the intelligent and open debate about the future of our relationship with the European Union for which the Government constantly call, for which the Minister for Europe called on the radio this morning, and which the Government do everything to talk about but nothing to provide or facilitate.
    Is this not utterly inconsistent with the Government's very recent undertaking to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, following the publication of the third report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, that they would no longer issue documents of this kind without

    835
    first making full and comprehensive statements to the House? Is it not yet further evidence of the Government's complete contempt for the House of Commons?
    As for the substance of the document, have we not heard all this before? After the Lisbon summit, the Prime Minister, no less, claimed:
    "The Council marks a sea change in European economic thinking. It points Europe in a new direction—away from heavy-handed intervention and regulation, towards a new approach based on enterprise, innovation and competition."—[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 21.]
    Before the Stockholm summit, the Government claimed:
    "All member states will press the Commission to take action that will make a difference to the way Europe is regulated. Reducing red tape for business start-ups and encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs means more new businesses and more new jobs."
    Yet, as we know, despite all those warm words nothing meaningful—nothing of any significance—happened. Indeed, the Commissioner responsible for the single market, Commissioner Bolkestein, himself said:
    "We're seeing too much poetry and not enough motion. It is not enough to issue these elevated statements and then not act upon them."
    Is the Chancellor not even remotely aware of the irony of the fact that he and the Government call, in this document, for the European Union to cut unnecessary and expensive regulations, when the Government of whom the Chancellor is such a prominent member introduced into this country last year—according to the House of Commons Library—4,642 new regulations? That is not just a record number of regulations, but a 50 per cent. increase on the number introduced in 1997. Is it any wonder that the British Chambers of Commerce has said:
    "The bottom line is that the sheer quantity of red tape on business is damaging our economy, stifling enterprise, job creation and economic growth"?
    How can the Chancellor have the gall to lecture the European Union on the need to reduce regulation in this document, when his Government impose burdens on business in this country that cripple its ability to create the wealth on which we all depend?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be delighted to answer the shadow Chancellor's points, although it seems that the Conservatives wish to avoid the subject of foxhunting by discussing Euro-baiting.
    There is a lack of proportion in the shadow Chancellor's complaints. We sent the document to him an hour before Question Time, as we sent it to the Liberal Democrats. We have made it clear in the document that we are bringing together the announcements made by Ministers in past months in the run-up to the Barcelona summit. It is a bit much for the shadow Chancellor to complain that there is nothing new in the document, and then to say that there must be a statement because a statement is about new policy.
    As far as the shadow Chancellor's individual points are concerned, we are the Government who secured changes in European policy—on taxation, with the savings directive, on value added tax on e-commerce, and on moving forward the single market in financial services. He should welcome the Lamfalussy report, which made a number of recommendations on that matter. We have persuaded the European Commission to look again at the question of state aids, and it is looking again at the
    836
    question of competition policy. The takeovers directive is being re-examined as a result of actions that we and other countries have taken.
    Therefore, as far as economic reform and the single market are concerned, we are pushing forward with the agenda necessary to opening up the single market. Conservative Members supported the start of the single market in the 1980s, and they should support the measures that we are proposing to complete it. However, whenever the word "Europe" is mentioned, Opposition Members say that they are against anything that is being done. They cannot bring themselves to support positive measures. They should welcome the fact that we are going to Barcelona with an aggressive and dynamic agenda for a job-creating Europe that is socially inclusive, and that opens up labour, product and capital markets to the benefit of British jobs, businesses and people.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Will my right hon. Friend say how far the stability and growth of European economies depend on recovery in the world economy? In particular, what would be the impact if Japan sank into a 1930s-type depression, as foreseen in yesterday's edition of The Guardian? That newspaper ran an article headed "The Crunch: Japan's Credit Rating Could Fall Below Botswana's".
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury, and he has looked at issues concerning the global economy. It is absolutely clear that we need the radical structural reform of the banking sector that the Japanese Government have promised. It is also clear that America must keep markets open. Those in America who wish to resort to protectionism in certain sectors should be dissuaded from doing so.
    However, it is also clear that we must balance pro-expansion fiscal and monetary policies with structural reform in the European Union. That is why it is important that a message is sent by European leaders at Barcelona that they will move ahead with opening up the energy and financial services markets, and the utility markets as a whole. I believe that we will get that message from Barcelona.
    Matthew Taylor: Is not it obvious that the Chancellor should have made a statement to the House and not adopted this awkward procedure, by which the Government have messed around with Question Time? That was made all the more obvious by the Chancellor's speed reading as he tried to get through a substantive statement in a matter of moments. The Chancellor's speed reading was exceeded only by that of both sets of Opposition spokesmen. We had to try and get through four documents that we received only a matter of minutes before the Chancellor made his statement—not the hour that he suggested. Moreover, we received notification that a statement was to be made only through the pages of The Times.
    The document contains, in paragraph 1.13, a substantive apparent change in Government policy, in connection with the Government's approach to the growth and stability pact. Previously, the suggestion was that the Government supported the pact, but a rather different interpretation appears in the document, which is that the Government will support the pact only if it is interpreted in what they call a "prudent" way. Presumably, that means

    837
    a way that suits the Chancellor. If it does not mean that, will he explain what is meant by the word "prudent", and how it differs from any previous interpretation placed on the matter by others, not least the European Union? Will he specify what is meant by the passage that states that the UK continues to discuss the matter with its EU partners?
    Are the Government seeking reform of the growth and stability pact? What is the interpretation on which they are seeking agreement? What meetings have the Government had, and when does the Chancellor intend to report to the House either about what he is seeking to achieve, or whether he has achieved it?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the Liberal party's shadow Chancellor. The Government offer statements to the House of Commons when new policy is being announced. There is no new policy in the document, which brings together all the announcements that we have made in relation to the Barcelona economic reform summit. I believe that that will be to the benefit of the House, and the country, as we proceed to Barcelona. He is utterly wrong about the growth and stability pact. Since 1997, I have been making it clear, and I believe that he should support this, as his party supports increases in public investment, that we want a pact that takes account of the economic cycle, promotes public investment—and therefore, in certain circumstances, borrowing to support that—and deals with debt sustainability. When Italy, for example, has debts that are 110 per cent. of gross domestic product, while Britain's amount to only 30 per cent., it is clear that the treatment given to each country under the pact will and should be different.
    I spoke about the three reforms of the growth and stability pact at the European Council only this week. More and more countries recognise that the procedure adopted by the Commission a few days ago was not the best way forward. Our position arises from the principle that these are matters that can improve the pact, and I believe that we are making progress. In trying to claim that this is new policy, when I have made it absolutely clear over the past few years that there was a need for reform of the growth and stability pact, the hon. Gentleman shows that he is out of touch with what is happening in Europe.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the Chancellor for his statement, and I understand that there are two key elements to the stability and growth that he envisages for Europe. One is the reform of state aid in other countries. How does he think that we can tackle the anti-competitiveness in certain countries' shipbuilding industries, for example? Will he also consider the financial services markets, which are the other key element in the pact? We want a single financial services market, but how, when there are regulators such as Dr. Müller in Germany, who completely goes against the risk-based approach that this country has adopted and that is being so ably promoted by the Economic Secretary and the Financial Services Authority, can we achieve—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be brief.
    Mr. Brown: Commissioner Monti has agreed to a further review of state aid, with a view to modernisation in line with the practices of the modern world. I believe that that is long overdue.
    838
    I hope that all parties will welcome the Lamfalussy report. A few days ago, a new report from the business community said that the gains from opening up financial services could amount to about 0.5 per cent. additional GDP across the European Union. British insurance firms, banks and financial services firms would benefit from the opening up of the industries in other countries, and we, with our great success in that field, are in a position to gain maximum benefit. We will continue to pursue the reform of the financial services industry, as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Why does the document call for greater transparency and accountability in the World Trade Organisation, for example, but not mention the more essential issue of accountability at the European Central Bank? Does the Chancellor recall making a speech on this subject last spring? Has he now dropped it from his agenda?
    Mr. Brown: No, we have also discussed the future of the European Central Bank and I have welcomed the fact that the bank, which did not use to publish comprehensive minutes of its meetings is now doing so, in line with the practice of the Bank of England. Increasingly, it is making itself more accountable to both the Governments and the people of Europe. It must, of course, remain an independent central bank. Those of us who supported the making independent of the Bank of England recognise the importance of the European Central Bank being independent of the decision-making processes of politicians.
    Ms Oona King: Is it not self-evident that we need rules relating to ourselves and our European partners on debt, and that those must take account of debt sustainability, and is not the essential point that, if we have political influence in Europe, we can renegotiate the rules to favour the interests of our country, and is it not the case that the Government can do that, whereas the Opposition can only squeal and squawk from the sidelines? In doing so, not only are they not acting in this country's interests, but they are being profoundly unpatriotic.
    Mr. Brown: Indeed. At the European Council only a few days ago, we wrote into the German and Portuguese conclusions the importance of the debt reduction that they had agreed. Debt sustainability is now being recognised by the European Council as a major issue that must be tackled. I would have hoped that both sides of the House would support our proposed reforms of the growth and stability pact. They are good for growth, good for jobs and good for public investment. Of course, it was the previous Conservative Government who negotiated the stability pact in the first place. That pact needs reforming, and I hope that both sides of the House will support such reform.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: I congratulate the Chancellor on the part that he has recently played, as I urged him to do, in undermining the so-called European growth and stability pact. Of course, to apply it in a recession one has to burn the books of Maynard Keynes and rescue the shroud of Philip Snowden from the Labour mausoleum. Does the

    839
    Chancellor agree that strict application of the growth and stability pact's rules during a recession would make it much more difficult for a British Government to deal with rising and serious unemployment, as Germany is finding today?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, in considering the economic events that should form part of our discussion, has yet to mention the return to the gold standard in 1925.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend knows all about it.
    Mr. Brown: It is a lesson for economic policy making.
    As far as the growth and stability pact is concerned, I agree with the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) that, as Keynesian economics teaches us, the pact should be reformed to recognise the economic cycle. The important point is that last summer, when the stability pact code was rewritten, account was taken of the economic cycle for perhaps the first time in the Council's deliberations on that matter. That is one reason why the Council felt unable to take action against Germany and Portugal in the past few days. Reform of the growth and stability pact is now accepted more widely than just in the United Kingdom, and such reform should extend to recognising the importance of public investment. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not one of those Conservative Members who use growth and stability pact discussions simply to push anti-European prejudices.
    Roger Casale: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Britain can take the lead in Europe in economic reform, and the reforms that he has discussed will be strongly beneficial to British companies and jobs and the British economy—not least in areas where we have a comparative advantage, such as energy and financial services. In looking to make those structural changes, will he also continue to press—as he said that he would—to make the stability pact more flexible? Does he accept that many on the Government Benches will say to him that we did not liberate this country from years of cuts in public services imposed by the Conservative party only to see public investment restraints reimposed as a result of the growth and stability pact?
    Mr. Brown: It is by pursuing sensible monetary and fiscal policies that we achieve both growth and future prosperity through rising investment. In addition to our proposed reforms in the growth and stability pact, our management of monetary policy, the European Union and the past year's interest rate reductions have also been very important in creating the conditions for the re-establishment of growth. We should remember not only
    840
    that public investment is rising at the right time, which the Opposition have opposed throughout; we have also had the fastest growth in the G7 in the past year, the lowest inflation and interest rates for 40 years, and for the first time since the second world war, unemployment in Britain is lower than in Japan, America and Europe. I hope that both sides of the House will welcome that.
    Mr. David Ruffley: In the context of the White Paper, could the Chancellor explain why the United Kingdom has fallen from ninth to 19th in the world competitiveness league since 1997?
    Mr. Brown: Under the Conservative Government, we were 23rd in the world competitiveness league to which the hon. Gentleman referred. [Interruption.] It is important to point out what happened under the Conservatives. I could quote all the surveys conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and other companies in the past few months, which show that we are the leading location for investment in Europe. The hon. Gentleman asked his question in the way that he did because he cannot escape the fact that we have had the fastest growth in the G7 in the past year, the lowest inflation for 40 years and employment rising in a way that it is not in other countries.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an irony that it was Germany that insisted on creating the growth and stability pact and is now in danger of being bitten by its own dog? Does he also agree that it is an irony that he himself intervened, very sensibly, to prevent the growth and stability pact strictures from being applied to Germany, and avoided its being criticised? Does he also agree that if Germany is to get out of its present recession—today's figures show that its output actually fell in the fourth quarter—it will have to break through the constraints of the growth and stability pact, which shows that the pact is nonsense as currently formulated?
    Mr. Brown: No, I do not accept that. We support the growth and stability pact. We support the co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy—that is absolutely essential—but we support the prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!] Exactly. Unfortunately, Conservative Members did not insist on that interpretation when they were in government.
    The reason that a prudent interpretation of the growth and stability pact is now being accepted is that, in our interpretation, it does recognise the importance of public investment, of the economic cycle and of taking debt into account. The growth and stability pact that we support is one that will take all these things into account. Therefore I am not against a growth and stability pact. I am in favour of a growth and stability pact, and one that takes account of public investment.

Business of the House
12.56 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I should be delighted. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing us to take his time for the question.
MONDAY 4 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.
TUESDAY 5 MARCH—Opposition Day for the minority parties. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Government Support for Mr. Mittal and the Domestic Steel Industry" followed by a debate entitled "Process of Consent for New Nuclear Power Stations in Scotland and Wales". Both debates arise on a motion in the names of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
WEDNESDAY 6 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Office of Communications Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 7 MARCH—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on policy on environmental taxation followed by a debate on the deployment of Ministry of Defence resources in the war against terrorism.
At 7 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 8 MARCH—Debate on police on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 11 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY 12 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 13 MARCH—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 14 MARCH—Debate on women and equality on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 15 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Monday 18 March there will be a debate on hunting. In the Queen's Speech we promised that we would enable a free vote to take place on the future of hunting with dogs. The Government will table a motion enabling the House to express its view in a free vote between the three options. A similar vote will take place in the House of Lords.
Following those votes my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs intends to bring forward, before the Easter recess, our proposals to resolve the issue.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 13 March, there will be a debate relating to European transport policy in European Standing Committee A and a debate relating to cosmetic products in European Standing Committee C.
[Wednesday 13 March 2002:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 11932/01, Commission White Paper; European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide.
842
12597/01, Draft Decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xv, (2001–02).
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: Unnumbered EM submitted by DTI dated 14 November 2001; Amended draft Council Directive amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-vii; HC 152-xix (2001–02).]
Finally, may I make a personal statement regarding my answer at last Business questions to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) a fortnight ago? At the time, I said that
"there was no disagreement…between Mr. Sixsmith and Jo Moore",
which I accept is difficult to reconcile with all that we have since learned. More seriously, I said that
"there was no such e-mail".—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 314.]
The Mirror has since recorded that it was misled as to the contents of the e-mail and that it was not addressed to Jo Moore. But there was an e-mail. I would not have used those words had I been aware of that at the time.
I enjoy our Thursday exchanges and I always seek to be accurate, if combative, in my replies. I regret that on the last occasion I was not in possession of accurate information. I apologise to the House for having, in all good faith, misled it, and to The Mirror for having done it an injustice.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business. I also thank him for what he has just said so graciously, but may I suggest, to round off that little matter, that he may want to come to the House on another occasion, following the inquiries that I have no doubt he is continuing to make as to the source of the misinformation that he was so regrettably given and the actions that he and the Cabinet propose to take to ensure that such things do not happen again? That would serve not only the House, but the Government—not to mention the right hon. Gentleman himself.
We have heard the announcement that the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill will be debated on Monday. We have been told that one day is being allocated to consider that Bill on Report and Third Reading. The House must be aware—if not, it is about to become aware—that 32 clauses and seven schedules to that Bill were not even considered in Committee, and that some 68 amendments have already been tabled for debate on Report stage of what is a 92 clause and 13 schedule Bill.
Will the Leader of the House reconsider, even at this stage, whether one day is remotely adequate to consider that number of amendments to a Bill of that size? Will he also give an undertaking that, if any Government amendment is tabled to that Bill between now and Monday, further time will made available properly to consider any such amendment? I hope that he will give that issue very serious consideration, because that important Bill contains some very controversial elements and it must receive proper consideration.

843
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you said:
"It is not a rule of the House, but a courtesy, that Ministers give as much warning as possible of any statement that they are going to make. I encourage Ministers to do that. If there is any difficulty or short notice in future, I can use my discretion, but I would rather encourage Ministers to give out their statements well in advance."—[Official Report, 27 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 709.]
Already, less than 24 hours after you said that, Mr. Speaker, we have had the unedifying spectacle of a humiliated Chancellor, who, having tried to slip out a White Paper under the guise of Question Time, was then obliged to turn a question into a pseudo-statement; but even then he gave no advance warning to my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor of the contents of what he was going to say, which he then garbled and babbled out at the Dispatch Box in a properly embarrassed manner.
What on earth can you now do, Mr. Speaker? In your typically generous way, you suggested to the House yesterday that you expected Ministers to respond to what you had said, but you said that you could use your discretion. Not only do I ask the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that he will use his influence to ensure that we do not have any more of this, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look again at the discretion that you said you might use, because the House is now being abused on a daily basis by the most senior members of the Government who seemingly do not care any more whether the conventions of the House are adhered to. That is regrettable and demeaning to everyone involved, not least to the Chancellor himself on this occasion.
We have now heard the confirmation of what has been widely speculated on in press: we will have debates on the subject of saving foxes, hares and failed Secretaries of State. The debate will have to take that form, will it not? We now know—I want the Leader of the House to confirm or to deny this—that there is a causal link between the parliamentary Labour party's support for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the not coincidental announcement almost immediately afterwards that some raw meat is to be thrown to the parliamentary Labour party.
Will the Leader of the House confirm categorically and on the record that there is no question of any link whatever between the support given by the parliamentary Labour party to the Transport Secretary and the almost immediate announcement of a debate on hunting? If it were ever to emerge that there was any truth in that, it would be seen as the most cynical ploy. It must be a perfect example of the countryside being sacrificed to a Secretary of State at bay.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Let me deal with his points one at a time.
First, I will continue to reflect on anything useful that I am told with regard to the matter that I dealt with in my statement. However, the matter has been discussed exhaustively in the past three days. I am a humble man and there is nothing that I can usefully add to what has already been said.
On the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, many of the amendments that have been tabled for next week are in the Government's name and are of a technical character. Indeed, in some cases, they are on issues that have been raised by others, to which we want to respond positively.
844
We are confident that the Bill can be properly dealt with in one day if the House is businesslike in its approach. I hope that we can deliver on that next week.
I am strongly in favour of making statements when it is appropriate and necessary to do so. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the four and a half years since 1997, this Government have made more statements to the House than were made in any four-and-a-half-year period under the preceding Conservative Government. When I was the shadow spokesman on international affairs, they frequently produced documents on Europe without even the courtesy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has just given the House of an additional half-hour of questioning.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, who is fecund in his imagination, on having managed to bring the Secretary of State for Transport into the discussion on hunting. [Interruption.] I would not deny the right hon. Gentleman the credit for having done so. On this occasion, he is hunting a red herring—not worthy of me, but I could not resist it. I assure the House that the decision was taken last week, well before anything was said by Mr. Sixsmith to The Sunday Times, and well before any discussion in the House on the Secretary of State.
Mr. James Wray: May I draw attention to early-day motion 901, on biochemical weapons?
[That this House calls for the Government to come to an agreement with NATO to declassify the information regarding biochemical weapons taken from the aggressors during World War Two which were dumped off the shores of several European countries around the North Sea and in the Baltic; notes that the 50 year period under which such information is kept private is now finished; calls on the Government, other European countries and other responsible nations to make considerable efforts to combat the pollution that is caused by the sunken vessels which are affecting marine life around European shores; notes that the Russians are already taken action on this issue, and believes that the British Government should do likewise.]
I understand that more than 50 years ago, the Americans, the Russians and the British, after seizing trophies from the aggressors in world war two, put biochemical weapons into 65 ships and dumped them all over European waters, some in the Baltic sea, some in the North sea and some off the shores of Sweden and Denmark. As the 50-year period of classification is over, is it possible to have a debate on getting NATO to agree to declassify this information? The Russians have already taken action and found that some of the vessels are leaking Yperite, which is mustard gas, into the marine environment. They are very concerned about it. If that is allowed to continue it could affect three or four generations.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue, which is clearly of real concern to him. I shall convey his comments about declassifying the documents to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I saw some of the documentation when I was in my previous post and the consensus of international scientific advice is that dumping on the sea bed does not pose a threat to the

845
environment. That in part reflects the judgment on the extent of dispersal, should there be leaks of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. I shall draw the question of declassification to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the Leader of the House on his gracious apology. I hope that other members of the Cabinet will follow his good example in future. Does he recall that in the debate on the Committee on Standards and Privileges report on 13 February, he promised, at column 222, to reflect on the issue that I raised with him about the compatibility of the ministerial code with the code of behaviour of Members of the House? Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to make a statement on his reflections? Can he give us any indication of when he may be able to make a statement on that review? Who is undertaking the review of the code of ministerial conduct? Can we be assured that there will also be a parallel review of the code relating to ministerial special advisers?
In view of the admission on Tuesday by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that he intervened to stipulate the departure terms of Mr. Martin Sixsmith, insisting that Mr. Sixsmith was not to be in receipt of any employment in the civil service in future, does the Leader of the House accept that there is a potential conflict even with the existing code, let alone with the statements made since about the code, particularly in relation to the obligations of a good employer? In view of the substantial evidence that has been added to today that the Secretary of State insisted on equality of treatment as between Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith, can the Leader of the House tell us whether a similar stipulation was applied to her resignation—that is, that she should never be employed in the civil service again?
Mr. Cook: I of course recall the promise that I made to the hon. Gentleman during our debate on the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Indeed, I predicted this morning that the hon. Gentleman would be vigilant in reminding me of it. This is not a matter that can move overnight; as I told the House, we wanted time to consider carefully the serious points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I assure him that I am certainly reflecting on it—indeed, I hope that it is not an offence to the English language if I say that I am actively reflecting on it. When I am ready to say something, I will come back to the House and make sure that the hon. Gentleman is advised about it.
As for the Government being a good employer, of course all members of the Cabinet are under an obligation to be good employers in their Department. However, all Members of the House—particularly Conservative Members, with their knowledge of business interests—are also aware that the duty of a good employer is to make sure that the Department can function and is not undermined by any employee within that Department. In addition, a good employer is required, perfectly reasonably, to make sure that people in the Department are fulfilling the contract to which they signed up. The resignations the other week have been trawled over extensively. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the
846
statement by the permanent secretary, Sir Richard Mottram, to which it would be unwise for any of the rest of us to add.
David Winnick: Although I welcome the debate on hunting with dogs, is my right hon. Friend aware that most Labour Members—certainly not Conservative Members—would like, by the end of this Parliament, to have in place a ban on hunting with dogs, a barbaric practice that should have been banned long ago? If, at a later stage, this House votes for a measure that the House of Lords will almost certainly vote against, would the Government be willing to use the Parliament Act? Even if only a minority of people in the country were in favour of a ban, the view of my colleagues and me would be no different, but there is a large majority in favour of such a ban. It is in this Parliament that such a practice should come to an end.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware that this issue arouses strong feelings on both sides of the House. I also fully respect the strong views of my hon. Friend which he has held sincerely and deeply for a long time. That is why the Government are providing the opportunity, which we promised in the Queen's Speech, of a free vote to enable the House to express its view. I recognise that it is unlikely that the House is likely to express a different view from when it last voted. It may or may not be the case, however, that in the House of Lords a different conclusion is reached when the Lords consider the three options. After that, the Minister for Rural Affairs will consider how to take the matter forward and find a way of reaching a conclusion, which was the commitment that we made in our manifesto. Until we have made that progress, it would be unwise to speculate on what we will do in the event of failure.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Leader of the House accept that there is one item of unfinished business arising from the Jo Moore affair, and I do not thereby refer to the impending reshuffling of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? I refer to the leak inquiry which was commissioned many weeks ago to find out who did the public service of revealing to the world the appalling e-mail that Jo Moore put out on 11 September, from which everything else flowed. May we have a statement from the Cabinet Office as to how this leak inquiry is progressing? May we know whether, if the culprit—so-called—is eventually identified, that person will suffer the same fate as Martin Sixsmith for daring to expose the truth about the twisters in the DTLR.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that only one matter remains from the Jo Moore affair. I will hold him and his entire party to that statement.
It is my understanding that there was no particular inquiry within the Transport Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I merely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.] It could be that I am over-extending myself, but I would not expect such an inquiry to produce a particular result. What is important is that we make a success of ensuring that the Transport Department works together to meet the needs

847
of the travelling public. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is that, rather than a leak last September, that concerns people.
Mr. Tony Banks: The suggestion that the debates on hunting are a sop that has been flung to the Back Benches is journalistic tosh and demeaning to many people both in the House and outside who have campaigned for years to get a ban on hunting with dogs. It was in our manifesto and the Queen's Speech. To link it to the Secretary of State for Transport is fanciful in the extreme and total nonsense.
The process of having debates on hunting is getting rather boring. As my right hon. Friend said, we know the will of the House of Commons. Why cannot we just revive the Bill that went through the House in the last Session? We could do that quickly and move it to the House of Lords. If it decides to reject it, it will not be Government who invoke the Parliament Act because it will automatically come into force. If my right hon. Friend or any of his colleagues think that there is a soft option called the middle way, they are deceiving themselves.
Mr. Cook: Knowing my hon. Friend as well as I have for many years, I assure him that I would never imagine that he would accept a sop, and no one is dreaming of offering him one. He has genuine and sincere views, which I respect. I ask him, though, to respect the views of those of us who genuinely and sincerely support the middle way.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to read to the interesting report published by the highly prestigious and authoritative National Audit Office, which shows that Labour's policy on the new deal is a complete flop? Will he arrange for a debate, with the Prime Minister present, on the matter so that the Government can apologise for the enormous waste of taxpayers' money that is so clearly set out in the report today?
Mr. Cook: I have seen a summary of the NAO's conclusion. I remind the House that more than 250,000 young people have entered employment through the new deal, as is set out in the report. The NAO makes highly speculative calculations about how many of those were a result of the new deal. If the figures are as low as it claims, it is difficult for me to reconcile them with the experience in my constituency. If the figures are right, they must relate to West Lothian only and nowhere else in Britain. The new deal has been important in delivering one of the remarkable achievements of the Government, which is a cut in youth unemployment by two thirds from the level that we inherited from the Conservative party. Against that figure, we will take no lecture from the Conservative party on youth unemployment.
Mr. Eric Martlew: On hunting, one must presume that a Bill will be introduced either in this Session or the next. My right hon. Friend told us that it will be decided on a free vote. Can he assure us that that will be the case and that Government Whips will not ask Ministers to go through the Lobbies?
Mr. Cook: I can unequivocally give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, if he looks at the voting record in
848
the last Parliament, he will observe that Ministers voted on two of the three options. I suspect that that will be the case this time.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Can the Leader of the House give me guidance on the crisis that is developing at the heart of the Government's policy on energy, especially as it is reflected in Scotland? This week, the Minister for Industry and Energy, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), is quoted as saying that the building of a power station in Scotland
"will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."
Conversely, the Minister of State, Scotland Office, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), said:
"it wouldn't be for a legislature which has powers devolved from Westminster to then thwart the policy of a UK government on areas which are clearly reserved to Westminster, such as energy".

Scotland cannot afford that developing crisis. How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to resolve it?
Mr. Cook: I anticipate that we will have a full opportunity to explore those issues next week, at which time the hon. Gentleman can put his questions to my colleague who will be taking part in that debate. Whatever the legal and constitutional position, surely the important issue is that Westminster and Edinburgh work together to ensure that they find a solution.
John McDonnell: The President of the United States of America seems inevitably to be moving towards war against Iraq, and this morning the Prime Minister made a statement in support of the President's "axis of evil" speech. May I ask that, before any decision is taken on this country joining military action, there will be a parliamentary debate and that any action will be the subject of a vote of this House?
Mr. Cook: It is important to remind ourselves that, despite the best efforts of the media to confuse the point, no decision has been taken in the United States or anywhere else on the question of military action. Indeed, if my hon. Friend looks closely at what the Prime Minister said in that interview, he will see that my right hon. Friend indeed supported action against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on which I would imagine all Members would support him, but made no commitment to military action in that connection, either against Iraq or anywhere else. Of course, in the event of the kind of outcome on which my hon. Friend speculates, there would be full discussion in the House. It is not something that could be done in secret, and would not be done in secret.
Angela Watkinson: The Leader of the House will recall the exchange on Tuesday between the Transport Secretary and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on the subject of congestion charging, in which the hon. Lady called for "this ridiculous plan" to be subject to
"a full public inquiry and environmental audit".
In his response, the Secretary of State said:
"under the terms of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 we are not allowed to deal with it."—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 573.]

849
I understand that the Government have a range of powers under that Act, not least including the matter of exemptions. Will the Leader of the House say when the Secretary of State will return to the Chamber to enable the matter to be debated fully?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend will be answering questions next week, and obviously that question can be put to him. The hon. Lady will be aware from her research that the Government's role in this is very limited. It is a matter for the Mayor to bring forward his proposals, but as she may also be aware, we have expressed the view that it would of course help to ensure full public consultation and consensus around the proposals if the Mayor, as is open to him, were to hold a public inquiry into them.
Jane Griffiths: I look forward to joining my right hon. Friend and hon. Members on both sides of the House in voting in due course for a total ban on hunting. However, on this occasion I would ask whether he could find an opportunity for the House to address itself to another matter: sex and death. He will know that the incidence of chlamydia in this country is terrifyingly high, and that the Government have carried out very useful pilot schemes on screening for the disease. Does he also know that chlamydia ruins fertility, destroys marriages, and because it causes ectopic pregnancy, kills up to 10 women a year? Can we find time to debate the issue and Government action against this silent killer?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a profound and real danger to so many of our young people. The growth in sexually transmitted disease among young people is a matter of concern to all parties in the House. That is why the Government produced only a few months ago their national sexual health strategy. I know that my hon. Friends at the Department of Health are pursuing that vigorously, and I shall draw their attention to my hon. Friend's interest.
Pete Wishart: Is the Leader of the House in a position to tell us who will respond for the Government in the Opposition day debate in the name of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru on nuclear power, given that we have heard that there is confusion at the heart of government between the Minister of State in the Scotland Office and the Industry and Energy Minister? Perhaps I could helpfully suggest that one opened the debate and the other closed it, and we could see how the debate develops.
Mr. Cook: Since it was at 10.15 this morning that, rather late, the SNP and Plaid Cymru informed us of the subject of next week's debate, I am not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about speakers. If next time they have an Opposition day they give us the normal notice, the night before, I will be able to answer in good time.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Licensed killing for fun is simply unacceptable. My right hon. Friend may support the middle way but, with respect, he is in a tiny minority. Why do we need to March the troops to the top
850
of the hill yet again when the view of the House of Commons is as plain as a pikestaff? On 18 March, instead of having a completely useless and meaningless indicative vote, why do we not take the Bill passed by the House of Commons in the last Session, debate it, vote on it, and send it to the House of Lords? If the Lords reject it, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) says, it would automatically become law in this Session. We should not continue the farce until 2003–04, when people outside the House and the majority of those inside it want the matter resolved now.
Mr. Cook: I have been pressed repeatedly in business questions for several weeks to schedule a debate on hunting, and I cannot say that I have been overwhelmed by gratitude for having responded to the demand. As for my position, my hon. Friend and I have in our time both been part of tiny minorities; that did not make us feel at the time that either of us was necessarily wrong. It is entirely possible that when he considers the options, my hon. Friend will feel that the Bill that was presented in the last Parliament is the way forward, and no one has excluded it as such. However, many of those who were involved in the debate on that legislation, including some who pressed for a ban, have perceived ways in which that Bill could be amended. That will require further consideration and should not be ruled out at the start.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Leader of the House accept that to many people the debate on 18 March shows a Government with the most extraordinarily twisted priorities? At a time when the Government are about to dismantle the Fleet Air Arm, the transport system is in chaos, there is a serious shortage of teachers, and the hospital trusts and social services in my constituency are underfunded to the tune of more than £20 million and unable to deliver the services they should, is not this spiteful and reckless attack on the rights of minorities a total waste of time and an irresponsible delusion of public opinion?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman and I have both been Members of Parliament for a long time and we both know that those on either side of the House can produce their own list of important matters that the House should debate. I would like the House to have more opportunity to debate the fact that this country has the fastest growth of any of the major economies, the lowest inflation in Europe, the lowest unemployment for a generation, and the biggest investment in health and education of any of the G7 countries. The totality of a parliamentary year provides opportunities for us to debate matters of deep public concern, and whatever view he takes of hunting, I am sure that he, as a fair-minded Member, admits that it is the subject of genuine public concern.
Dr. Brian Iddon: On 14 February, Channel 4 transmitted a programme that showed the application within the national health service of futile care theories. That is when medical staff make subjective judgments about their patients that can lead to death by dehydration and starvation—procedures legitimised in 1993 by the Bland judgment. Rather than the courts and the medical profession leading the debate, is it not high time Parliament began to debate that difficult area of policy?
Mr. Cook: That sensitive and delicate issue has been raised on a number of occasions. I fully understand the

851
sincerity with which my hon. Friend raises the question, but I have always taken the view—it must be a personal judgment—that such decisions are best left to the discretion of the medical doctors involved, who in hospitals throughout the country are daily faced with difficult judgments. I am not sure that high-profile political debate would assist them to make those difficult judgments.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Following the passing of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, Her Majesty's Government promised the House a regular debate on London issues. The Leader of the House will have heard the excellent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on congestion charges. Surely the House should be consulted on the merits of that iniquitous scheme, which will weigh particularly heavily on Londoners at a time when their public transport has been steadily run down? Will the Leader of the House now assure us that we will get that early debate, preferably before Easter?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that it is a good use of the House's time to debate matters over which the Government have no legal powers. Our main angle on congestion charges is whether the revenue from them is used to improve public transport; that is the locus of Government. We do not have a locus to prevent the use of the powers that the House has given the Mayor of London. However, I am sensitive to the need for a debate on London, and I said in the last business statement that I shall keep under review the opportunity for a debate on London issues.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: May I raise a matter of interest to my north-east constituents in Hartlepool? We had been led to expect that the White Paper on devolution to the English regions would appear in the new year, then March and then by Easter. However, according to a report in today's Financial Times, it has been postponed by the Government until a future date. Can my right hon. Friend say whether or not that is the case and, if it is, offer an explanation? Will he give an undertaking to the House that that will not mean that the Government's legislative timetable, whatever it is, will not slip?
Mr. Cook: Of course, no date was ever given for publication of the White Paper on the regions, so it is difficult to understand the allegation in the press that there has been a delay in a publication date that was never set. The bottom line is that all in the Cabinet want to introduce a White Paper on the regions. As my right hon. Friend, who follows these matters closely, will know, there are difficult issues to be resolved; they are being actively worked upon in repeated meetings. As soon as we can produce a White Paper, we shall do so.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I feel sure that the Leader of the House will agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating dangerously. I was grateful a few weeks ago for his assurances that Ministers would come to the Dispatch Box to keep us informed of developments. Does he think it appropriate, when the
852
Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition politicians there are clearly being intimidated ahead of the presidential election, to have a statement next week?
Mr. Cook: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the gravity of the situation in Zimbabwe. As he seeks a Government statement, I can say that we fully deplore the way in which the Leader of the Opposition there has been treated: on all the alleged evidence produced so far there is obviously no motivation other than a political one for the charges that have been brought against him.
I will indeed keep under review when it may be appropriate for a Minister to make a statement at the Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the elections, a week on Sunday, will take place very shortly; the House will obviously want to consider what happens after those elections. Whether it would be helpful in the context of those elections to have debates which would be relayed within Zimbabwe is another matter.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There were excellent exchanges today during Treasury questions on international debt relief and educational developments in the third world. Has my right hon. Friend noticed early-day motion 885 on tackling global poverty?
[That this House notes that international currency transactions total more than $1 trillion a day and that the vast majority of this is unrelated to the real economy of tangible trade goods and services; believes that such enormous speculative flows have contributed to serious economic damage to countries and regions such as Mexico (1994), Southeast Asia (1997), Russia (1998), Brazil (1999) and Argentina (2001); further believes that a small levy on such currency speculation, the Tobin tax, named after the Nobel Laureate who originated the concept, could both dampen down the scale and scope of speculation and raise substantial revenues, potentially in excess of $50 billion each year, for projects targeted towards ending global poverty, is pleased that this initiative now enjoys the backing of a number of governments and parliaments across the world, including France, whose parliament recently passed a law authorising its implementation; is heartened by the words of the Chancellor that innovative ways need to be urgently found, including currency taxes, to finance development; wishes the Chancellor a successful mission to the UN 'Financing for development' conference in Monterrey, Mexico; urges him to take steps towards the introduction of a internationally co-ordinated currency transactions tax, with the proceeds ring-fenced for international substantial development objectives; and further urges the Chancellor to ensure that these proceeds do not replace either existing international aid disbursements or agreed commitments to increase international aid.]
The first six signatories to the motion are from different political parties in the House and are concerned about introducing an international tax on international currency transactions and ring-fencing the money for third world development. Can we have a debate on that, which perhaps could be tied in with Monterrey and discussions on financing development, whether before or after the conference?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, and welcome his reference to the useful

853
exchanges during Treasury Question Time. The United Kingdom has been very much in the forefront of international debate on this issue and, in fairness, the last Conservative Chancellor was active on the matter too.
The Monterrey conference provides a useful opportunity to refocus international energy and interest on providing finance for development, which has not been sufficiently prominent in international affairs. I can assure my hon. Friend that my colleagues attending the conference will do all they can to make sure that a successful outcome is secured. That may not involve a Tobin tax, which has its own serious technical problems, but must involve equivalent ways of helping the third world.
Lembit Öpik: As one of those involved in the Middle Way Group option which seeks to offer an alternative to the rather entrenched positions of the pro and anti-hunting with dogs lobbies, and given that polls indicate that the public are moving away from criminalisation of hunting with dogs towards regulation, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the event of the Commons and Lords disagreeing with regard to the options in the Bill, he would consider setting up some sort of three-way dialogue so that, with some generous listening and mutual respect, we might be able to find a workable and fair solution that is accepted by a majority of the British people?
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman will be talking to himself, then.
Mr. Cook: I hear what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) says, and I gather that some of my hon. Friends did, too. I have just announced that there will be a vote in both Houses in some two weeks, and we need to wait and see the outcome of those votes before we consider the next step. The Government go to bed every night in the hope that they may wake up and discover that both Houses have voted for the same thing.
John Cryer: On the subject of hunting, I welcome the debate but this will be the fourth debate and free vote on the subject of hunting with hounds. We have had crushing majorities on all three previous occasions. Is it not about time that a Bill was introduced? Contrary, to what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) just said, if the Bill is passed in this place and goes up the Corridor to the other place and the Lords decide to sabotage it, the Parliament Act would automatically be invoked—we would not need any commission—and the legislation would be passed. Then we could get on with abolishing the House of Lords.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure to what extent my hon. Friend's final remark will provide an incentive to their lordships in the other place to be co-operative. I recognise the logic of his argument in terms of the application of the Parliament Act, but that would depend on all sides being satisfied with the precise terms of the Bill in the last Parliament. Some people, not necessarily those who are in any way friendly to hunting, have suggested ways in which that Bill could be improved. That, of course, cannot be done within the terms of the Parliament Act.
Mr. William Cash: The Leader of the House will know that the European Scrutiny Committee has been
854
conducting an inquiry into democracy and accountability in the national Parliaments. In the context of the constitutional convention that is taking place in Brussels today and in future months, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure, so far as he is able to do so, that the Minister for Europe comes before the House regularly so that proper questions can be put to him and we, and representatives of all parties in all parts of the House, can be properly informed about what is going on there? There is a strong feeling in the House that the disproportionate direction in which the convention is going could severely limit future democracy in this country.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone else in the House that the convention meets for the first time today, so it may be a little premature to say what direction it is travelling in. He will have noted the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary setting out a perspective quite distinct from that of some of the other countries that will be participating in the convention. I am not sure that all the rest of the House would share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for regular statements on progress in the convention, but it is a matter of legitimate interest, which I am sure will be aired. I look forward to the report from the European Scrutiny Committee on how we could improve our procedures in this House.
Roger Casale: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the establishment and inauguration of the convention on the future of Europe which, by bringing together national Parliaments with the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, will provide a unique opportunity to involve civil society and the people of Europe in a discussion and debate about the future limits and future direction of Europe? Does my right hon. Friend agree, first, that we should give central importance to the work of the European Scrutiny Committee, both in assisting our representatives on the convention to report back to the House, and in monitoring the progress of the convention, and secondly, that in parallel with the report of the Modernisation Committee on the work of Select Committees, this is a good opportunity to review and upgrade the work of the House in scrutinising European legislation? Perhaps we could consider some small experiments such as appointment by the European Scrutiny Committee of a rapporteur on the convention, or larger ideas such as the establishment of a Grand Committee on European affairs. Thirdly, does he accept that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Twice is enough.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes some very interesting proposals, and I would be very happy to discuss with him privately whatever else he was about to propose. On the question of appointing a rapporteur, the Modernisation Committee suggested in our report on Select Committees that they could make more use of rapporteurs. Of course, it is open to the European Scrutiny Committee to consider that possibility. I am pleased that the House is well represented on the convention and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on her election by the convention to its collective presidency. She will be able to play a major role in shaping its direction and procedures.

855
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) touched on the key issue: the convention should be not merely a body of politicians talking to each other, but a forum that can liberate and allow civil society and the public of Europe to take part in the debate about their future. Ultimately, we have to find a solution that is acceptable to the public and supported by them.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the accuracy of communications? Has he had a chance to consider early-day motion 904?
[That this House notes the report in the Evening Standard of 26th February that the Shooting Stars Children's Hospice has not yet been built; and consequently calls upon the Liberal Democrat honourable Member for Richmond Park to justify her press release stating that 'It was an honour to meet the brave children at the hospice. The work the doctors and nurses do at the Shooting Stars Children's Hospice is second to none'.]
The motion refers to comments by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) about visiting the Shooting Stars children's hospice, but unfortunately, as it says, the hospice has not yet been built.
There are other occasions in respect of which the Leader of the House could consider the need for a debate about communications. I notice that the 22 February edition of Liberal Democrat News announces that there is to be a by-election in Matlock on Hurst farm. A number is given for contacting helpers, and the announcement states:
"Party defending seat: Liberal Democrat. Cause: Resignation."
As of yesterday morning, there had been no such resignation. Could we have a debate on the accuracy of the information that is being circulated?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman memorably raised a matter concerning communication by a Department last time, so I am immensely relieved that he is being non-partisan. He has not yet attacked the Conservative party about communication, but no doubt he will have many opportunities to do so in future. I am pleased to say that I have no ministerial responsibility for these matters, but the House will have heard his remarks.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend may have seen a recent BBC poll on the national health service, which showed that the No. 1 popular priority was free, long-term care for the elderly. Subsequently, he may also have seen a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research saying that such care should be a priority for the Government and was popular with the electorate. He will have noticed early-day motion 351, on the Right to Care campaign.
[That this House welcomes the launch of the Right to Care Campaign; believes that the formation of a campaign grouping involving 20 major campaign groups, charities and trade unions is testament to the depth of feeling surrounding the issue of long-term care felt by the members of these organisations and by many members of the public; is concerned that distinguishing between personal and nursing care is impractical and will prove unworkable; further believes that these differences in policy between regions of the UK are creating major disparities in the type and levels of care available to elderly and disabled people; and urges the Government
856
to fully fund personal and nursing care that is free at the point of use for all who need long-term care, wherever they live throughout the UK]
The motion has the signatures of 122 hon. Members, the majority of whom come from the Labour Benches, and calls for free long-term care for the elderly. Will my right hon. Friend make time for another debate on this subject in the very near future?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a profoundly important issue that will one day affect all of us in this Chamber. It is also a matter of real and legitimate public debate. I have noted the reports to which he referred and will bear in mind this topic among the many others for which there are bids for discussion in the House. I remind him and the House that the Government have acted by providing for the first time that all nursing care in private residential homes will be provided for free. We have honoured that commitment and it is making a genuine difference.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will agree that the forthcoming debate on the armed forces and terrorism will be an opportunity to acknowledge the professionalism, ability and skill that the armed forces have shown in the fight against terrorism. Will it not also be an opportunity to commit ourselves to providing the armed forces with the resources that they need to fulfil their task? It is especially important that, as some personnel have been wounded and injured or have become sick as a result of their service, we continue to look after them afterwards. I remember from my parish days in Belfast that the prisoners whom we cared for were often far better looked after than the soldiers whom we sent to protect the citizens.
Mr. Cook: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and many others will wish to use the debate to record the House's deep debt of gratitude to those who serve us in the armed forces and our appreciation of their professionalism and dedication. They are repeatedly demonstrated to be among the finest anywhere on the globe, and we can take pride in them.
The Ministry of Defence goes well out of its way to try to provide help for those who have been injured in the line of duty and to protect and help bereaved families, as it did—exceptionally so—in the case of the bombardier who was killed in Sierra Leone. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about specific cases, I shall be happy to transmit them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am sure that the Leader of the House will be delighted to hear that I wish to help the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to do his job properly by calling for a debate on transport as soon as possible. During that debate, we could consider the success story of Chiltern Railways, which has just been awarded a new 20-year franchise; the progress of crossrail; the difficulties of Central Railway; and the appalling mess of the London underground, which is severely affecting my constituents. Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain to us why his mind was not on his job the other day when he appeared not to know that the Metropolitan line, which runs into

857
my constituency, is the worst line on the London underground. He could also give us the guarantees that we seek—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should not like the hon. Lady to anticipate her speech in such a debate.
Mr. Cook: It always worries me when Opposition Members say that they are going to be helpful. However, I agree with the hon. Lady about the success of the Chiltern line. I noticed that it has been decided that it will now be a classless line with one single class. That flatly contradicts the prediction of a previous Conservative Minister of Transport, who said that privatisation would bring in several classes, including a cheap and cheerful class for typists. I am sure we are all glad that they were wrong about privatisation in that respect, as in so many others.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I thank the Leader of the House for the charming and gracious way in which he corrected the record from two weeks ago. However, in line with "Erskine May", is it good enough to have to wait two weeks for the correction? It became clear at 4 o'clock on the afternoon on which he made his statement that he had been misled and had therefore inadvertently misled the House. I raised that on the Floor of the House before 6 o'clock that evening and again last Monday. Does two weeks meet the requirement of correcting as soon as possible inadvertent misleadings of the House?
I invite the Leader of the House to correct the reply that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill has 68 amendments tabled for Monday, all of which are in my name and in those of my hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for confirming that there will be Government amendments. I understand that they may be substantial amendments arising directly from our debates in Committee. The fact that we did not debate 32 clauses and seven schedules, yet finished with time to spare, must be taken up by the Modernisation Committee. We must be able to do our job as legislators properly.
Mr. Cook: On the time taken before correcting the record, I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that from 7 o'clock that day until Monday the House did not sit. This is the first business statement since then, and I have corrected the record at the appropriate time to the appropriate audience.
As regards the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, I am sorry if I was wrong about the composition of the 68 amendments to which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred. I understand that technical Government amendments will be moved to fulfil the commitments that we made in Committee.
I am not entirely convinced that the hon. Gentleman's revelation that all the amendments are in his name makes a compelling case for another day's debate. However, we
858
shall reflect on that in the light of what happens during the debate. If we take a businesslike and professional approach, I am sure that we can do it in the one day.
Mr. David Heath: I wish the Leader of the House a happy birthday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Can he find time in the near future for the Secretary of State for Defence to explain to the House, through a debate or a statement, exactly what is intended for the Fleet Air Arm and the Sea Harrier force? I understand that a press conference will be held at the Ministry of Defence this afternoon. There has been further speculation in the press this morning, which has been enormously unsettling for the people I represent at the royal naval air station at Yeovilton—the pilots and their families in particular. It would appear that significant changes are being made to the Ministry of Defence's assessment of the economic case for moving the Sea Harriers away from Yeovilton, without any explanation. As the Member representing that constituency, I have not been given the normal courtesy that I receive from the Ministry of an explanation of what is intended. Will the Leader of the House make it plain to the Secretary of State for Defence that it would be extremely helpful to the members of the Royal Navy who serve this country well if they were given a clear understanding of what is intended?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Brevity would also be helpful.
Mr. Cook: In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, it is my experience that the Ministry of Defence is one of the most punctilious Departments in making statements to the House. Its Ministers have probably made more statements than those of any other Department during the course of this Session. In the spirit of the good wishes that the hon. Gentleman has offered to me, however, I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend and suggest that he contacts the hon. Gentleman to clarify the situation.
Mr. Graham Brady: Can we have an early statement on the disposal of school playing fields? As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, his Government were elected five years ago on a pledge to stop the sale of school playing fields, yet we now know that, in spite of the comment by the Prime Minister as long ago as 1999 about the disgraceful waste of sporting talent due to the loss of school playing fields, the Government have done nothing about this. I also know, from a written answer that I received this week, that of 100 applications received since the Government supposedly tightened the rules only two have been rejected. The Government clearly have no intention of keeping their promise on this matter. The National Playing Fields Association has said that the Government have not kept their word. Can we have a statement on this, so that Ministers can explain why they have not kept their word?
Mr. Cook: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government acted quickly after 1997 to change the regulations and guidelines under which they would grant licences. Indeed, the number of applications for transfer

859
has declined, because local authorities—very reasonably, having seen what the Government said they would and would not agree to—do not submit applications when they know that they will get a negative response. That is why we should not read significance into the fact that the applications that are submitted are then granted, because that does not take into account the much larger number that are not submitted because they know they will be refused.
Hugh Robertson: This week has seen the publication of the latest edition of Members' voting records, which many of our constituents use as a measure of the diligence of Members of Parliament. The Leader of the House has also announced another free vote—one of a number that we are expecting in the next few months. Will he give some thought to making available a desk in one of the voting Lobbies, so that Members who wish to do so can formally register an abstention which will then go on the record?
Mr. Cook: I am not entirely sure whether, given three options to vote on Monday 18 March, anyone would really need to abstain on all three options. I personally deprecate the use of the voting record as conclusive evidence of the activity or contribution of a Member.
Mr. Forth: Why?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman asks why. I think that I had the third-lowest voting record during the last Parliament, for the very good reason that I spent so much time going around the world. Hon. Members are entitled to have their contribution judged in the round, rather than having it reduced to one simple statistic.

Points of Order
1.53 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order that may possibly even be helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say during a reply that, following the indicative vote and the process of consultation by the Minister of State, the Government would introduce a Bill before Easter. I am sure that that is exactly what I heard, whether or not it is subsequently corrected in Hansard. I have also just seen a reply from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which says that after the process I have just described, the Government will make a statement on the way forward. The question is whether there will be a Bill or a statement. Perhaps we can take this opportunity to clear this matter up before we get into further confusion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Perhaps I can give the Leader of the House the opportunity to respond to that, although I think that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) might possibly have misheard him.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I would not wish there to be any doubt about what I said to the House. I have in front of me the words that I used in my opening statement:
"Following those votes my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs intends to bring forward, before the Easter recess, our proposals to resolve the issue."
I believe that that is what I repeated subsequently in my answers, but if there is any conflict, I am happy to confirm that that is certainly the position.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The record will show what was said.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to column 563 of the Official Report of Tuesday 26 February, and to the personal statement of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is entitled "Resignation of Martin Sixsmith"? You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Sixsmith went on television that night to say that he had not resigned, and that negotiations were in train for him to secure his acquiescence to his proposed dismissal, perhaps involving a large sum of taxpayers' money.
Hansard is always regarded as an accurate record, and historians and serious students of politics look to it for a precise and accurate record of what occurred. In this case, it should have said "the so-called resignation" or "the alleged resignation", or even "the desired dismissal", but at that stage—and, I believe, even now—Mr. Sixsmith had not resigned.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter on which the Chair can adjudicate, other than to observe that Hansard was no doubt recording the manner in which the point was announced, and it can do only that. If the hon. Gentleman has a substantive point, he knows that there are other ways in which to pursue it.
Roger Casale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand why you were not able

861
to allow me to pursue a line of questioning about the future of Europe convention through business questions, but will you accept that if the House is to make its full contribution to that important convention we need more procedures than are currently available?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, but he must not try to pursue his uncompleted supplementary question through a point of order to the Chair. I am sure that he will have opportunities to pursue that important matter.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    COMPANIES ACT 1989 (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell presented a Bill to prevent the sale by auditors of other services to audit clients: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 104].

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
1.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Welsh day debate first took place in 1944, when Aneurin Bevan, then the Member of Parliament for Ebbw Vale, and other famous Welsh politicians spoke. It is an important feature of the parliamentary calendar that every year we have this unique opportunity for Members of this Parliament who represent Welsh constituencies, and those who do not but have an interest in Welsh matters, to debate, deliberate and discuss any matters that affect the Welsh people.
Since last year, several events have occurred, the most recently significant of which was the arrival in the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). We welcome him and, if he catches your eye Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will be able to listen to his maiden speech. He replaces Sir Raymond Powell, and those of us who were friends of Sir Raymond for many years will recall that this was a special day for him. He would be responsible for gathering the daffodils for the debate, and ensuring that every Member who wished to do so would have one to wear.
Sir Raymond's contribution to the House of Commons was, however, much greater than that. When I entered the House in 1987, I had to share accommodation with seven other Members of Parliament. New Members entering the House today do not have to do that. The fact that there is accommodation befitting a modern Parliament is largely due to Sir Ray Powell. He was a great servant to his constituency. Especially significant was the help he gave shopworkers, as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
We miss Sir Ray Powell today, but, as I have said, we welcome my hon. Friend in his place. He won a significant victory in the recent by-election. Although we may consult opinion polls from day to day and from week to week, the only polls that truly matter are the real polls, and the result achieved by my hon. Friend was significant in many ways—perhaps above all because, as a person from the south Wales valleys, he will be able to represent a very diverse constituency.
Since our previous debate on Welsh affairs, there has been another election: the general election. I am tempted, and will succumb to the temptation, to refer to what was said in March last year by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), whose daffodil looks splendid today. He said:
"Labour will not be given another chance at the general election."—[Official Report, 5 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 53.]
His crystal ball must have misted over. He made some other predictions, which I will list in the order in which he uttered them. He said that there would be Conservative victories in Monmouth, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Vale of Clwyd, Conwy, Cardiff, North, Vale of Glamorgan, Clwyd, West, Cardiff, Central, Brecon and Radnorshire, and Montgomeryshire.
At that point, however, a glimmer must have shone through from the spirit world. The hon. Gentleman correctly predicted that Plaid Cymru would lose Ynys Môn, which it did—but not, as the hon. Gentleman

863
forecast, to the Conservatives. He also predicted that he would become Secretary of State for Wales. I am delighted that I am here and he is over there.
I hope that we shall hear a further round of predictions from the hon. Gentleman today. If we do, I shall head straight for the bookmakers with my copy of Mystic Nigel's Tips for the Top. I shall resist the temptation to use the Welsh block, big though it is. I will put some of my own money on anything and everything not endorsed by the hon. Gentleman.
We fought the general election robustly. We fought it on the basis of our economic record, our plan to reduce unemployment and poverty, and the need to invest in and reform our great public services. The Conservatives also fought the election in Wales, of course, although no Conservative MP was returned there. They tried to do what I suspect the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will try to do later today: they tried to wipe from the public memory the record of 18 years that were so shameful and damaging for the people of Wales. The Conservatives ran down our public services, introduced botched privatisations—the classic example being the railway privatisation—and managed a boom-and-bust economy.
At the eve-of-poll rally for my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was the main speaker—and a great speech he made, too. It was a classic defence of everything that the Labour Government had done. In that speech, he said, "You can't have socialism if you're skint." He is right. To do what we want to do—in Wales, through the National Assembly—to improve services for those whom we represent, we must first have a strong economy.
All that is done in Wales to ensure the provision of public services is done against the backcloth of a strong economy, the fourth strongest on the planet. If inflation and mortgage rates were not the lowest for decades, and if unemployment—especially among young people—were not at its lowest for years in every Welsh constituency, the Assembly could not do what it must do to provide those services for our people.
We ended the Conservative practice of using mass unemployment as a means of controlling inflation. We have used money that was squandered on paying dole money to those who wanted work, to help eliminate poverty. That has been the key to the first few years of a Labour Government. It has meant that devolution can work in the provision of services.
Our strong economy has also meant that 90,000 people in Wales benefit from the minimum wage. Thousands of young people who were unemployed now have jobs. Welsh pensioners are better off than they have ever been. By April, the poorest pensioner households will be more than £1,000 a year better off in real terms than they were in 1997; the average pensioner household will be £840 a year better off than it was in that year, as a result of tax and benefit changes; and an extra £6 billion a year will be spent on pensioners, £2.5 billion on the poorest third. Far less than that would have been delivered by the link with earnings.
Working families tax credit and other tax breaks have helped thousands of Welsh people. Child poverty in Wales has been reduced. The personal tax and benefit changes introduced in the last Parliament mean that 1.2 million fewer children are in poverty in the United Kingdom than would otherwise have been the case. As
864
a result of personal tax and benefit reforms since 1997, households with children are on average £1,000 a year better off. The number of children living in workless households fell by 300,000 during the last Parliament. Is it any wonder that, at last year's general election, the people decided once more to put their trust in Labour to run our country?
Moreover, we invested in our public services. We have heard a lot about public services of late. We have heard that some are not working well, and that this is happening while that is not happening. The first thing we had to do, in fact, was to ensure that money went into those public services. Any expert examining the comprehensive spending review presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last spending round will know that billions of pounds were given to Wales in addition to what it would normally have been given, for health and education in particular but for other services too.
Furthermore, for the first time, Wales has had an objective 1 programme that is, properly, additional to the block grant. Nearly half a billion pounds extra went into the coffers of the Assembly. In all the time that the structural fund has existed, that has never happened before. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister said that they would not let Wales down, and they did not.
Investment, however, is not enough; there must be reform as well. Sometimes that takes time. Sometimes teachers, nurses, doctors and others must be trained, and that will not happen overnight. Sometimes, naturally, people become impatient. But the reform is happening, and Labour Members remain fully committed to a health service free at the point of use and funded through general taxation.
By far the fairest way to fund health services is though the tax system. As long as the Labour Government remain in office, the tax system will be the essential means of funding our health service. Obviously, it is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make his decisions about what level of tax is required to pay for essential investment in public services, but we remain firm on that basic principle.
No doubt we shall hear later how the Opposition propose to fund any changes in the NHS, and how that will fit in with what they have said in past months about levels of expenditure. However, we know that it would not be possible for the Opposition to fund the health service—or the Welsh block that in turn funds the health service—if they did not commit themselves to proper expenditure. Therefore, we shall listen with great interest to what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley proposes to do with regard to funding our public services.
However, the Opposition should be reminded of what happened when a previous Conservative Government introduced a new tax and abandoned progressive taxation. That Government in the end had to abandon the community charge—or poll tax—because it was so unpopular. The importance of what the Opposition propose is so great that I am sure that all hon. Members will be waiting with bated breath to hear what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley has to say.
In the end, the reform of public services in Wales is a matter for our colleagues in the National Assembly. The Government provide the resources, but the Assembly

865
decides how those resources are spent. There has been some debate about the use of private money in funding our services. The Government and my colleagues in Cardiff have always said that any private money used in funding public services would be additional to public funding.
That is a matter not of ideology, but of common sense. In some constituencies—and the hon. Members representing those areas are in the Chamber today—certain items of public expenditure have been bolstered by the use of additional private money. Projects that have benefited in that way include schools, hospitals, council offices and waste management schemes, and they have been set up in local authority areas controlled by parties other than the Labour party. Examples include a school in Maesteg, a secondary school and a road in Caerphilly, a secondary school in Ceredigion, schools in Conwy, council offices in Denbighshire, hospitals in Monmouthshire, roads and schools in Newport, primary and nursery schools and local authority offices in Pembrokeshire, community activity in Rhondda Cynon Taff, and integrated waste management schemes in Wrexham.
I am not saying that the use of private funds is to be the main, core means of funding our public services, but there must be innovation in how we deal with reforming and investing in those services, which are vital to every part of Wales. Sometimes, an artificial distinction is made between rural Wales and urban and industrial Wales. Yet the matters to which I have already referred—the benefits to pensioners, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the changes in taxation—are as significant and important to people living in rural mid-Wales as they are to people in my south Wales valley constituency, or to people in the city of Cardiff.
The police, health, education and transport services are as important in rural Wales as they are elsewhere. Last year, we held our debate just as the scale of the foot and mouth outbreak was becoming clear. For many in the Welsh countryside, the past year has been appalling. If the foot and mouth outbreak taught us one central lesson, it was that tourism and other elements of the rural economy are as important as farming when it comes to providing jobs and prosperity to rural Wales.
The decisions that we took to protect farming were supported by hon. Members of all parties and had widespread effects that went well beyond farming. Although it must be our hope that we will not see another foot and mouth outbreak in our lifetimes, we must recognise that no one can offer any such guarantees. That is why it is so important to learn lessons very quickly, and to be as diligent as we have been over past months. That diligence extends to the issue of food imports, which was raised only yesterday.
It is important to put on record what the Government, and especially the National Assembly, have done over the past year to help rural areas. The Government have set up the rural taskforce, granted deferment of tax, value added tax and national insurance, and offered business advice through Business Connect. We have allowed businesses suffering from cash flow problems to apply for loans worth up to £250,000 from the small firms loan guarantee scheme, and we have encouraged banks, building societies and insurance companies to offer sympathetic treatment.
866
We have also made available nearly £160 million of agrimonetary compensation. In addition, the £65 million in Cardiff's rural recovery plan includes help for marketing, tourism, environmental projects, and so on.
I suppose that it will be quite a long time before the full effects of foot and mouth on our rural economies are properly known. Only one Welsh constituency has no farms, so I am sure that all hon. Members with constituencies in Wales are conscious of what has occurred in the past year.
Mr. Roger Williams: All the areas affected by foot and mouth value the rural recovery plan, but is not the Secretary of State disturbed to hear that tourist businesses outside the areas covered by objective 1 and 2 funds find that state aid laws prevent them from obtaining substantial funding from the Wales tourist board? For instance, a person in my constituency has a project to build a leisure centre costing £750,000, but the grant aid available to him is limited to less than £50,000.
Mr. Murphy: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know that foot and mouth disease has caused serious difficulties in his area. He and I attended a service in Brecon cathedral some months ago, which was attended by representatives from all the different walks of life in his constituency. I shall certainly make sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said is put to the Ministers for Rural Affairs and for Finance, Local Government and Housing in Cardiff. However, I know that the Welsh Assembly has given substantial help to tourism, and only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced another package to ensure that tourism comes into Wales, both from within the UK and from overseas.
Mr. Mark Prisk: The Secretary of State rightly highlights the need for vigilance, especially with regard to contaminated meat imports that could bring foot and mouth back to Wales. However, Customs and Excise and the other agencies trying to patrol the ports report severe manpower shortages. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what measures he is taking to correct that shortfall of officers?
Mr. Murphy: It is not for me to take those measures, but I shall certainly make clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to colleagues in other Departments how important it is to liaise with Customs and Excise, local authorities and other agencies—and with the Assembly, too, where that is relevant—to ensure that there is a programme to deal with imports of illegal food. Much greater vigilance is necessary at airports and ports, as is a good public information programme. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government are aware of the points that he has made.
The difficulties of the past year have not been confined to rural areas, but have been experienced too in some of our urban areas. Not long ago, the Welsh Grand Committee met in Cwmbran to debate the future of manufacturing industry in Wales.
Of course, we have had the difficult news about Corus and there have been other examples of industries moving to eastern Europe and elsewhere, but the issue is whether those industries are being replaced in Wales.

867
Many of us can remember, because we are that old, a time when our valleys were dominated by coal and steel. I remember, 30 years ago, when those industries were declining, how they had to be replaced, sometimes by heavy engineering and other forms of manufacturing. In my constituency, 12,000 jobs that had replaced the jobs in coal were lost in 20 years, but those in turn are now being replaced by jobs in information technology, computerisation and so on. That, added to the measures that the Government have introduced for the benefit of the people of Wales in their hugely successful new deal programme, means that there is not a single constituency in Wales that cannot point to an improvement in its unemployment figures.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Of course we agree that, as heavy industries decline, they must be replaced by more modern ones, but surely it only accelerates the process of the decline of heavy industries such as steel in south Wales when the Government give encouragement and active assistance to someone like Mr. Mittal to help competitors in places such as Romania.
Mr. MurphyWe will have the opportunity to debate these matters in greater detail next week. I look forward to that debate, in which I will take part. I will comment briefly on the hon. Gentleman's points—he knows Wales reasonably well—but I want first to finish the point that I was making.
The way in which our industries change and we skill up our people to work in the new industries is the key to their future. Why did we get objective 1? The whole purpose is to bring the Welsh economy up to the standards of those of other countries in Europe, so that we can follow the lead of the Irish economy and become, in a matter of 10 or 20 years, one of the most successful regional economies in Europe.
We have example after example of new industries, factories and plants being established in constituencies throughout Wales—Ford in Bridgend and BAE in Broughton are just two examples.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) knows that I had to spend a great deal of time speaking to the chief executive and chairman and other people at Corus to try to find out what it would take for them to retain those 3,000 jobs in Wales, and 6,000 in the rest of the United Kingdom. Time after time, I asked Brian Moffat and the others whether the Government could do anything to change their minds about their intentions for the steel industry. The answer was no. I rather suspect that they had made their minds up at the time of the merger.
On every single day of those negotiations, I was in contact with the steel unions. The Iron and Steel Trades Confederation will certainly agree with what I am saying. Time and time again, we said that we would like to offer various measures of assistance, but Corus was not willing to change its strategy, so we had to ensure that, when those decisions had been taken—they affected my constituents far more than the hon. Gentleman's: at least 1,000 of mine lost jobs at Llanwern and Ebbw Vale—something was done to replace the lost jobs.
The Government and the Assembly put together tens and tens of millions of pounds to regenerate our local economies. For example, there is the railway from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff, which has long been needed. I worked in Ebbw Vale for 17 years, so I know a little bit about the situation in Blaenau Gwent.
868
On the point about Mittal, it is wrong to say that Corus would have changed its mind or done anything different because of the Prime Minister's letter to the Romanian Prime Minister. It would not have made a ha'porth of difference. Why is it always said, whenever the Government, or any other European Government, help an economy that needs help, be it in Asia, Africa or eastern Europe, that we are harming our own economy?
Some of my colleagues have sent trade delegations to Romania that have included Welsh companies. When we help to bring up to modern economic standards countries such as those that want to join the European Union, which is what we do as a developed country, of course we run the risk of creating a competitor, but we also ensure that trade with that country improves, allowing Wales to export to an economy that is much sounder than it was. That is the reason behind the Prime Minister's letter and that is why we wanted to ensure that the industry and economy in Romania were up to scratch.
Adam Price: The Secretary of State will have seen the letter from Graham McKenzie of Allied Steel and Wire to the Prime Minister. Does he agree with Mr. McKenzie's assessment that Mr. Mittal's acquisition of the Sidex plant in Romania was detrimental to the interests of the Welsh steel industry, because it will result in direct competition and endanger jobs in Wales?
Mr. Murphy: There are very strict regulations in Europe on dumping, and the Government have strict policies on protectionism, including for the United States. We will debate these matters in greater detail next week, but the hon. Gentleman and his party very much agreed with objective 1 funding, the whole idea of which is that the wealthier countries in Europe, including Germany, should provide funding to improve the Welsh economy, among others.
I cannot understand how a party that has said that is fundamentally for Wales and Europe—it did not say much about Britain until this latest episode—can object to assistance to Romania, which although not part of the European Union, is a struggling country trying to become part of it. The hon. Gentleman is saying that every time we help such a country it is to the detriment of Welsh industry.
Alan Howarth: My constituents, including those at Llanwern, are deeply appreciative of the energetic efforts that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor made to try to find ways of helping Corus when it was contemplating the discontinuation of steel making at Llanwern. They did everything that they could to ensure that that disaster did not take place, but Corus proved hard to help, as my right hon. Friend said. I thank him also for his unwavering commitment to ensuring that Newport, which is not an objective 1 area, got effective assistance, including, for example, through the urban regeneration company which the First Minister has promised us. It would be enormously helpful if we could have the Minister's continuing support to ensure early clarification

869
of the urban regeneration company's scope and terms of reference, and so that we can get it up and running. At present, a mass of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That has gone way outside the confines of an intervention.
Mr. Murphy: It was a nice intervention, if too long, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments, and I obviously agree that it is very important to regenerate our communities following the loss of jobs in the steel industry. That is why next week, we and the Welsh national party should debate how to regenerate the Welsh economy. That is much more important than the old rubbish about which we have been hearing.
Denzil Davies: I do not want to prolong the debate on the Mittal affair, which I presume will continue next week, but regardless of misgivings that might exist, does my right hon. Friend agree that the argument that we have just heard—that because Mr. Mittal purchased a Romanian steelworks, it is in direct competition with Corus—is one of the weakest? If Usinor, the French company, had purchased that steelworks, it would still be in direct competition with Corus. Similarly, a steelworks in Slovakia that a major American company bought is now in direct competition with Corus.
Mr. Murphy: I agree. Of course, those who work in the steel industry in south Wales could argue that the greatest threat to it was the original merger with a Dutch company.
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd rose—
Mr. Murphy: Given that we shall discuss the matter next week, and given that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak to the debate, it is wise to move on.
Mr. Llwyd rose—
Mr. Murphy: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I hear what he says and I am sure that his comments about the packages that were put forward are accurate. However, the truth is that it was common knowledge for some 18 months to two years beforehand that Corus was losing billions of pounds. Where were the Government then?
Mr. Murphy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Corus had been telling us repeatedly for many months that the biggest problem it faced was the exchange rate. It subsequently changed its mind somewhat, but that is what it said for months and months. Then it said that the problem was capacity, and then it said that the problem was something else. Who knows what the ultimate problem was? As the hon. Gentleman knows—I have reported the matter to the House before—I attended the relevant meetings and the Government did all that they
870
could to ensure that the industry remained in south Wales. Indeed, the steel unions themselves acknowledged that fact.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Murphy: No, I really must move on. As I told the hon. Gentleman, 1,000 people who work in the steel industry in my constituency have lost their jobs—we will talk about that on Tuesday—and that is probably 1,000 more than have lost jobs in his constituency. Those issues will be discussed in greater detail in the debate that Plaid Cymru has called for next week, and the hon. Gentleman and others can make their points then.
As many Members wish to speak, I shall conclude by discussing the functioning of the House of Commons and the way in which the devolution settlement works with the procedures of the House to ensure that the 40 Members representing Welsh constituencies, along with others who take an interest in Welsh matters, can affect the lives of Welsh women and men.
In the years since the setting up of the National Assembly, we as a Parliament and a Government have worked with it to produce measures of enormous significance to Welsh people. For example, the fact that we have the first children's commissioner in the United Kingdom is a direct result of our working with the Assembly and across parties. The Assembly is using Education and Learning Wales—ELWa—to transform post-16 education and lifelong learning in Wales. That initiative is the result of legislation that this Parliament and this Government passed, in conjunction with the National Assembly.
We gave the Assembly in Wales the functions of the National Care Standards Commission in England; we gave the local government ombudsman the power to investigate alleged misconduct of councillors; we enabled the Assembly to administer the system governing the conduct of councillors—and so on. In this Session, we are dealing with the health service and the education service in Wales through primary legislation, and some of my hon. Friends and other Members have taken part in those debates. The House of Commons is working with the Assembly to change the face of those services.
After Easter, draft health legislation for Wales will hopefully be published and will come before us for consideration. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales twice visited the National Assembly to talk to the relevant health and education committees about dealing with the scrutiny of legislation. When that legislation comes before us, the House of Commons and the National Assembly will have their own ways through which they can scrutinise it for the benefit of Welsh people. To that can be added the good work of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee and the many other ways in which Members of Parliament can help to improve the lives of Welsh people through this place.
Let no one therefore say that Welsh Members of Parliament have no role to play in improving the lives of the people whom we represent jointly with members of the Assembly. It is that partnership—team Wales, one might call it—between a Labour Government and a Labour-led Assembly that has alone led to enormous change in the lives of our Welsh people in the past

871
five years. It is because of those policies that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore was returned with such a good majority. Devolution itself would not have happened under any party but the Labour party. If it were not for the Labour party, there would be no Assembly and we would not have objective 1.[Interruption.] Now we will hear what the Liberal Democrats intend to do.
Lembit Öpik: I should point out to the Minister, who doubtless made a slip of the tongue, that the Liberals invented the concept of devolution. However, we were delighted that the Labour-led Government felt entitled to adopt that policy, and we will always be happy to lend our good policies to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention—indeed, his inventions, for they are many.
In addition to devolution and objective 1, we are helping old and young people. The Assembly has agreed much the best concessionary fares in the United Kingdom, and museum charges will be abolished so that our young people can visit all the museums in Wales. As a result of a Labour Government, we have the biggest ever police force in Wales, including in the Rhondda.
Mr. Chris Bryant: I agree that one of the most significant changes to tourism in south Wales was free entry to national museums, as applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, local authority-run museums such as the Rhondda heritage park are presented with a problem. People have to pay to visit such places while entry to Big Pit is free.
Mr. Murphy: I suppose that I should declare an interest, as Big Pit is in my constituency, but I shall certainly take the matter up with the relevant Minister in Cardiff.
The partnership between a Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour-led Assembly in Cardiff has resulted in a quality of life for Welsh women, men and children that is infinitely better than it has been for 100 years. Wales is now a more civilised, compassionate, caring, prosperous and democratic place in which to live and work.
2.39 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: It is always a joy to take part in the St. David's day debate, and I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about my predictions in the last one. He had no willpower and could not resist rubbing my nose in them. He also told the House that he is ready, wad in pocket, to rush down to the bookies on any prediction that I care to make to bet the other way. I shall make only one prediction today: Wales will beat Italy in the rugby international on Saturday. I can see the headlines now—"Secretary of State for Wales backs Italy in international against Wales". Shocking.
Lembit Öpik: The headline will surely be, "The hon. Member for Ribble Valley destroys Wales's chances of winning".
Mr. Evans: I will allow the hon. Gentleman that intervention, if—I hope—no other in the rest of the debate.
872
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who fought a valiant campaign during a wet three weeks in Ogmore. We all got drenched—some more than others—but I welcome him to the House. We look forward to his maiden speech, if he can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I also endorse the Secretary of State's comments about Sir Ray Powell. We all remember Ray with nostalgia. I was a great supporter of his and I remember the collection of the daffs. He was also the accommodation Whip and if he took a dislike to anyone, it was some time before they moved from a desk in a corridor. Indeed, Ken Livingstone had to wait a long time before he got a room from Ray Powell.
I see that many Labour Members are sporting daffodils. I remember that when I was at Dynevor school with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—several years apart, I hasten to add—some of us would wear leeks on St. David's day, instead of daffodils. I was amused to note, although it is a serious issue, the latest ruling from the European Union on the standardisation of leeks. I was aghast when I read it, because we used to wear leeks of all shapes and sizes. We as consumers were king, and I declare an interest as someone with a retail business in Swansea that sells many a leek.
Leeks will be classified as from tomorrow, which is the final insult. If it had happened on 1 April, I could have understood it better. They will be classified into two classes. The regulations state that leeks in class I must be
"of good quality…The white to greenish white part of the leeks must represent at least one-third of the total length or half of the sheathed part. However, in early leeks, the white to greenish white part must represent at least one-quarter of the total length or one-third of the sheathed part…Size is determined by the diameter measured at right angles to the longitudinal axis above the swelling of the neck…The minimum diameter is fixed at 8 mm for early leeks and 10 mm for other leeks. For Class I, the diameter of the largest leek in the same bundle or package must not be more than twice the diameter of the smallest leek."
I always thought that the growing of leeks was God's work but now the EU has come to his aid with some useful advice on the growing and selling of leeks.
Chris Ruane: Is not it a shame that with all the opportunities facing Wales now, such as objective 1 and its bright economic future, the only thing that the hon. Gentleman can rant about today is the sheathing, swelling and length of his leek?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long before I get to the meat. I just thought that I would start with what should be humorous but is all too serious. People will find it strange that, given all the problems that exist, bureaucrats in Europe are setting out rules and regulations that will lead to people going round shops with tape measures, making sure that leeks are the right size. I agree that that is a ridiculous waste of money.
I shall stay on agriculture, because the Secretary of State had much to say about it. The past twelve months have been the direst time that agriculture in Wales and elsewhere has seen. I raised the issue at Welsh questions yesterday and there has just been a scare of another outbreak of foot and mouth disease in north Yorkshire. Thankfully, that has not happened. Wales had 118 cases,

873
with more than 35,000 cattle, 304,000 sheep, 5,900 pigs and 121 goats being slaughtered. The outbreak also had a ripple effect on tourism and allied industries. The cost was enormous. It was estimated at £500 million in Wales alone.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the full implications and ramifications of foot and mouth have yet to become fully known. I therefore find it strange that after an outbreak that devastated and blighted two industries and affected many others, the Government did not agree to a full and independent public inquiry. Much could have been learned. As hon. Members may have gleaned from my earlier remarks, I am not the greatest advocate for everything that the EU does, but I find it amazing that we now have to rely on it to set up an independent inquiry, which will visit Wales. It will gather information from farmers in Wales and elsewhere and make its own recommendations. It is shameful that our own Government could not have done that.
Farmers dearly want the cessation of the importation of substandard meat, but that will take more than putting a few posters up at the ports. The Secretary of State showed some sympathy on the subject yesterday, and I hope that he will have talks with the Minister for Rural Affairs and any other Ministers with influence on the policy, so that we can have strict controls on its importation. If that is how we believe that the last outbreak started, let us take action now to ensure that it never happens again.
The Secretary of State mentioned public services and dwelt at some length on health. While that is a devolved matter, he is right that the money is raised by this Parliament and passed on to the Welsh Assembly. The primary legislative powers also still reside here. However, I am staggered that he made no reference to the appalling state of some aspects of the health service in Wales. I do not implicate those dedicated hard-working nurses and doctors who work in an intolerable atmosphere, but the figures for patients waiting more than 18 months are shocking. In 1997, the number was 1,402, but today it is 4,248. The number waiting more than six months for a first out-patient appointment in Wales was 5,956 in March 1997, but by the end of December 2001, it was 68,000.
I am sure that many hon. Members will have constituents who come to see them or write to them regularly about problems with the national health service. We are burying our heads in the sand if we refuse to wake up to the real problems. A senior surgeon at the Royal Gwent hospital has criticised the increase in waiting times in Wales. He said that they were
"cruel, inhumane and intolerable…the problem is a lack of everything…There are no surgeons, insufficient staff in training, there aren't the facilities for them to work in, there aren't the operating theatres, there aren't beds, there aren't enough anaesthetists…the whole of the Health Service is in such a poor state".
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: Yes. I am sure that the senior surgeon at the Royal Gwent hospital will be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's response.
Mr. Bryant: What is the hon. Gentleman's response to the litany that I am sure he is about to give us of what is
874
wrong with the NHS? Does he believe that taxation should go up to pay for the NHS or down? If it should go up, by how much should it do so?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman can give no explanation, but I will answer his response by quoting a headline from the Western Mail: "NHS is wasting millions, says former minister". I am talking about the former Minister—
Mr. Bryant: Should it go up or should it go down?
Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman will listen for a second, I will quote a former Labour Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who said that about £500 million could have been saved if the Government had followed some of the recommendations that he made when he was Minister.
Part of the problem is that there are differences between hospitals in Wales in the cost of operations. For instance, a Caesarean section would cost £547 at Glan-y-Mor hospital in Swansea but £1,945 at Wrexham Maelor. Hip and femur replacements cost £2,589 in Pembroke, yet at Llandough hospital in the Vale of Glamorgan each operation set its budget back by nearly £8,000. There are enormous differences in the cost of routine operations done in different hospitals. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bridgend, who is in his place, will have some contribution to make on the health service. He has said many interesting things in the past, and I am sure that he will say one or two more about that.
Enormous savings can be made by seeking ways to improve best practice. We should listen to practitioners in the health service as well, instead of coming back with some of the spin that we are used to from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and his party.
Mr. Bryant: Answer the question.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I give way again to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).
Chris Ruane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this issue. He complains about the length of waiting lists to see consultants and surgeons. Is he aware that it takes between 10 and 17 years to train a surgeon or a consultant, and that these people should have been put in place 17 years ago, under the previous Conservative Government?
Mr. Evans: When the Labour party first got elected, we were told that we had 24 hours to save the NHS. We have now been told that it takes 17 years. When the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was Secretary of State for Health, he was told that it would take some time to turn the tanker round. The Government ditched that particular captain well before it was.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I give way to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. Huw Edwards: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal Gwent hospital and identified some

875
problems in waiting times. They affect my constituents and I am well aware of them. Does he agree that at the Royal Gwent and throughout the national health service, there is also the problem of a lack of consultants who devote their time fully to the NHS? Will he therefore commend the present Government's attempts to negotiate new contracts with consultants to reward them as they deserve to be rewarded for devoting their time full-time to the NHS?
Mr. Evans: What I will not do is commend the Labour Government for cruelly raising expectations in 1997 that everything could be sorted out if only a Labour Government were elected; that clearly has not happened. Devolution was supposed to be the answer to everything. We know from some of the plans that have emerged from the Health Secretary that the reforms will be great news for pen-pushers but certainly not great news for those who work in hospitals. The hon. Member for Monmouth will also remember—I raised the issue the other day at Welsh questions—that he was at the bottom of a very long list to try to get on an NHS waiting list for a dentist in his constituency, because there were no dentists whose list he could get on to immediately. The Government are failing not only him but many of his constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I will give way once more, to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), and then I had better move on.
Julie Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He would do well to recognise some of the successes of the health service in Wales. For example, he might go with me to Velindre hospital in my constituency, the cancer hospital for my area, which leads the United Kingdom in trials for cancer care and is an exemplary model of treatment in every way for people suffering from cancer. Perhaps he might help the hard-pressed workers in the health service by recognising their successes in Wales, where they lead the UK.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady must recognise that I started by praising those who are dedicated and committed and work in the national health service. It is they who have to put up with this intolerable Government and the promises that they make. Indeed there are enormous successes in the NHS, whose staff perform miracles daily. My brother had a cancer operation in Singleton hospital in Swansea more than three years ago and the staff performed an absolute miracle on him, so I have great praise for those who work in the NHS. However, I have enormous reservations about some of the problems caused by Government policy.
Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No; I want to move on. There are several issues to discuss and many hon. Members want to speak.
I mentioned the National Assembly. We know, with some of the changes that have taken place and with the Mike German affair going from farce to fiasco, that it is a shambles on the inside and a shambles on the outside. When the Secretary of State for Wales says that we need
876
to ensure that money is efficiently spent on the public services, I wonder whether he still believes at this late stage that he could perhaps inform the House of his views on the Assembly building. That is one farce that has certainly carried on—a pantomime that has run way after the Christmas period.
The Secretary of State knows that, when we were discussing devolution, we were told that the whole thing would cost between £12 million and £17 million. When it reached £40 million, the First Secretary decided to put a stop to it. We have ended up with a hole at a cost of £8 million, and the National Assembly is so embarrassed by it that it has now put a fence around that hole in Cardiff at a cost of many thousands of pounds; at one stage I was going to ask the Secretary of State whether he would look into it for me. I am not going to do so, but is he not embarrassed by the enormous waste of money? Would it not have been far better if that money had been spent on the national health service, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North was saying, on some of the excellent services that are available and on improving those services throughout Wales?
I am also concerned about the delay of local elections in Wales until 2004. That means that the people of Wales will now have to wait another 12 months before they can pass judgment on their elected councillors of any persuasion. Surely the Secretary of State has a view about that. We were told that the local elections could not be held on the same day as the elections to the National Assembly in 2003 because it would lead to confusion. But in Scotland the date of the local elections has been altered so that they can be held on the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament. Is the Secretary of State really saying that the people of Scotland are more intelligent than the people of Wales? I do not think so, and it is a gross insult that we are being told that because the people of Wales will be confused, the elections have been deferred until 2004.
The last part of my speech deals with the economy in Wales and the meltdown in manufacturing, about which I am extremely concerned. There have already been many job losses in manufacturing. Sony cut 220 jobs in Bridgend. GEAES, an aircraft engine manufacturer, cut 350 jobs on top of the 450 cut last year; the Corning optical factory in Deeside closed, and Dow Corning cut 40 jobs in Barry.
However, the most disturbing name in all this must be Mittal. I know that on Tuesday there is to be a debate on the subject, but I must mention it because manufacturing is so important to Wales. Manufacturing accounts for a disproportionately high percentage of jobs in Wales. Yes, we want the service sector to improve and know that in a number of service jobs, employment has increased. In the Welsh Grand Committee, I mentioned Swansea airport, where an investment has been made. Air Wales now flies from Swansea to Cork and Dublin. That has been an enormous success, and the projection is that about 300,000 jobs—
Kevin Brennan: Would the hon. Gentleman care to remind us how many manufacturing jobs in Wales were lost in the first five years of the Conservative Government

877
after 1979? Would he also care to confirm that, as we speak, unemployment in Wales is at its lowest for 25 years?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman reminds us of a time when the Labour party spoke regularly about manufacturing decline. Anyone listening to Labour Members' words during the period 1992 to 1997, when I was first elected, might just have thought that if a Labour Government had been elected in 1997, the rot, as it was called, would stop, and there would be an increase in manufacturing jobs.
Mr. Nick Ainger: The number of jobs in Wales has increased.
Mr. Evans: No. There has not been an increase in manufacturing jobs in Wales but a decline.
The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Labour Government are in power. We are looking to them to improve the manufacturing sector in Wales, but that simply has not happened.
I am talking about the service sector jobs at Swansea airport, and I hope that the Secretary of State will do his bit to ensure that that airport improves. That would be a great boost to west Wales, and I hope that it would open up parts of that area, which has had some difficult times because the decline in agriculture. Some 1.5 million passengers use Cardiff airport every year, but more could do so if the infrastructure—the roads from the airport to Cardiff—were better, so we also want improvements to take place there. However, manufacturing is the bread and butter of the Welsh economy, so I should like to refer to it.
Mr. Prisk: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although manufacturing in Wales has already been in recession for one year, the Trades Union Congress today intends to publish the fact that it foresees no recovery in manufacturing in the coming year? Indeed, it does not foresee a recovery in manufacturing in Wales until the beginning of next year. So there will be two years of manufacturing recession under Labour.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: That is the TUC's forecast.
Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend suggests, that was said by the TUC—I thought it was a friend of the Labour Government. The fact is that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) exposes some of the deep concerns that, surely, all hon. Members have about what is occurring. Indeed, a total of 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the United Kingdom since 1997.
During the past 12 months, the House has rightly concentrated on the problems with steel and Corus. Hon. Members will remember the questions, debates and statements in the House that related to the job cuts at Corus just over a year ago. The chief executive, Sir Brian Moffat, said that action was needed because of the huge excess in capacity in its strip mills division. It was
878
announced that 6,000 jobs were to go—3,000 of them in Wales. That was a devastating blow to an immensely skilled and productive work force and their families.
The Government said:
"We will do everything that we can to turn the situation around, and I hope that even at this late stage the company will be prepared to sit down and talk with us."
The Liberal Democrat, Richard Livsey, described Sir Brian as a butcher. Barry Jones, when a Member of Parliament, said that
"our communities are now being put at risk by a cynical, brutal, thoughtless, profit-mad company".
He added:
"Our people gave everything to the board and have received nothing back but a kick in the teeth. They believe that they are being sacrificed on the altar that represents profit".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 241-42WH.]
The hon. Member for Monmouth referred to Sir Brian as "the silent assassin". People were being sacrificed, but the silent assassin—if that is what Sir Brian was—was assisted in his work by those in Downing street. The job losses were appalling. Llanwern, Shotton, Ebbw Vale, Bryngwyn all suffered losses in addition to the 3,000 job losses elsewhere.
On 28 March 2001, the Prime Minister said:
"We also stand ready to help in any way that we can with those…people…I hope the company will listen to them; we certainly will."—[Official Report, 28 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 961.]
We now find that he was listening to someone else. Less than two months later, £125,000 was donated by an Indian steel magnate, Mr. Lakshmi Mittal, to the Labour party. His wife had previously supported the Labour party with a more modest £5,000 donation to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), but I am sure that the donation did not go unnoticed at Millbank. The £125,000 donation was received with thanks.
Mr. Mittal is a steel man and has been very successful, from 1976, when ISPAT Indo was established in Indonesia, to the purchases in Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Canada and Germany. In 1995, he moved his headquarters to London, with the expansion into Kazakhstan and Ireland continuing.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, unlike the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales is indeed a pretty straight kind of guy. Does he find it rather strange therefore that the Secretary of State told the House early this afternoon that this was all about helping a poor country such as Romania? If that is the case, why did not the arch spin doctor at No. 10 say so? Why did he instead try to pretend that Mr. Mittal's company was British?
Mr. Evans: No doubt we will hear more about that issue on Tuesday, but the fact is that, as I hope to show, Mr. Mittal's company is anything but British.
Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No. I want to say a little more.
Mr. Mittal was expanding his company throughout the world. He bought the Irish company in 1996, but he closed it five years later, on 15 June 2001, with substantial debts of £40 million. The Irish Government and the

879
European Coal and Steel Community have had to pick up the redundancy costs, but that closure had wider repercussions, as I am sure the Secretary of State for Wales knows. Allied Steel and Wire—which operates in Wales and employs more than 1,300 in the United Kingdom, more than a 1,000 of whom work in Cardiff—has to find another £5 million because the credit that it was accustomed to being given was adversely affected by the fact that that company closed, leaving debts of £40 million.
Graham MacKenzie has written to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, but I want to know what sort of assistance will be given to companies such as his that employ people in this country and pay taxes here. Is it not time that we started to bat for the companies which have been affected? The amazing thing is that the buy-out of that company is similar to the one that took place in County Cork, where a commitment was given that no redundancies would take place for five years. With the closure in Ireland, the redundancies took place after five years and two weeks, and the same commitment has been given.
Mr. Martyn Jones rose—
Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No.
On 23 July 2001, the Prime Minister sent his famous letter backing the deal to the Romanian Premier, Adrian Nastase. It said how the buy-out would help Romania with its accession to the European Union, which, I believe, the Secretary of State for Wales has intimated. Of course, we all know why the Prime Minister signed that letter within weeks of thousands of Welsh, and British, steel jobs being cut. Moreover, other people who now work in the steel industry must be aghast at what is going on.
We are told that the letter was written because Mr. Mittal is a British business man. That was later revised to a business man with British interests. We are told that his headquarters are here, but a leap of imagination is now needed to understand how the Prime Minister possibly thought that he was doing Britain a favour. It then transpired that DFID supported a bid from the company for extra help as well, because it was a British company. [HON. MEMBERS: "DFID?"] Yes, DFID—the Department for International Development. Is that okay?
The company is British, but the fact is that 99.9 per cent. of its work force were overseas. However, it was to receive a £70 million soft loan from the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which described the LNM bid as "a very good project". What do hon. Members think those who have lost their jobs in Corus must think now? What do they think anyone who works in the steel industry in Wales thinks now?
Mr. Martyn Jones rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Evans: We are told that the Prime Minister writes letters all the time for British companies, but what is a British company? I shall refer to a letter that David
880
Davies, the Assembly Member for Monmouth, wrote about a company in Wales. He wrote to the Prime Minister asking for some support on 18 February 2002:
"I am writing on behalf of a family business, Morgans of Usk, which employs 60 people in my constituency, a rural area which has been badly hit by foot and mouth and the closure of the Corus steelworks in nearby Newport.
For ten years this company has been fighting for the release of £35,000 held by the Bank of England. The money was earned through work done on an Iraqi contract by Glantre Engineering prior to the Gulf War.
Release of this money could not be considered of benefit to Iraq. It is money held for payment to a British steel firm. Morgans of Usk is a reputable British company employing people in an area where such jobs are hard to come by.
You have stated that your intervention on behalf of a British steel company, Mittal, was not influenced by the large donation made to Labour Party funds.
I would, therefore, be grateful if you would sign a letter for the Bank of England, authorising them to release the money which could provide further employment to a steel firm which has not made a large contribution to party funds.
I look forward to the same swift and personal response for a British steel company with 60 employees as you were willing to give to a 'British' company owned by Lakshmi Mittal.
I now have the response to Mr. Davies from 10 Downing street—not from the Prime Minister, I am sad to say, but from somebody called Kathy McCann in the Direct Communications Unit—dated 22 February. It says:
"I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for your letter of 18 February…The Prime Minister has asked me to arrange for a Minister in the National Assembly For Wales to reply to you direct"
What is the difference between a company that employs 60 people in Wales, and LNM, which employs fewer than 100, and employs 99 per cent. of its work force abroad? It is shocking that the Prime Minister has not decided to support that company.
The water becomes increasingly murky in regard to whether LNM is a British company when we understand that a French company, Usinor, was also bidding for the Sidex plant in Romania. We now know that that French company employs three times as many workers in the United Kingdom as does Mittal's company. It has been in Britain since 1923, not 1995 as in LNM's case, and has a head office in St. Albans and subsidiaries in Birmingham and the west midlands. To use the Prime Minister's definition of what is British, that French company is three times more British—but clearly not as generous in its donations to the Labour party as Mr. Mittal's company. Even the Romanian chamber of commerce publishes LNM holdings as a Dutch company. In any event, Mittal's LNM subsidiary bidding for Sidex is based in the Dutch Antilles in the Caribbean, as we all know.
First, we were led to believe that the Prime Minister had not met Mr. Mittal. Later, however, we learned that the Prime Minister had attended a function at Downing street to thank Labour party donors, and Mr. Mittal was one of the biggest. Yesterday we learned from "The World At One"—this is on the programme's website—that the so-called controller of fundraising when Mittal made his first donation in 1997 was Jonathan Powell. We also know, according to the programme's website, that the original draft of the letter to Adrian Nastase, the Romanian Prime Minister, included the word "friend" to describe Mittal's relationship with the Prime Minister,

881
but that it was crossed out by Jonathan Powell, the chief of staff. Are we now to believe that Jonathan Powell placed his revised version of the letter without talking to the Prime Minister about it at any stage, or that the Prime Minister did not know who Mittal was despite having met him recently? What entered the Prime Minister's head when he signed a letter on behalf of a company based in the Dutch Antilles which directly competed with steel plants in the United Kingdom? It was shedding jobs in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom at the time too.
Even the Foreign Secretary intervened last week. He asked: "if you asked those 100 people"—Mittal's employees—
"whether they feel better about being employed than being on the dole they'll tell you that they'd rather be employed here in Britain".
The Foreign Secretary might as well ask the 6,000 people who lost their steel jobs in the United Kingdom whether they prefer to be on the dole while the Prime Minister supports competitors in Romania.
Mr. Martyn Jones rose—
Mr. Evans: Even worse news for Wales and for steel production is that Mr. Mittal has actively campaigned in the United States of America for barriers to be erected against foreign steel entering that country. The decision will be made by President Bush on 6 March. Not only does that hit Welsh and United Kingdom steel exports, but even worse, the extra capacity from other countries that is turned away from the United States might end up being dumped in the United Kingdom market. A Labour peer, Lord Paul, has described the letter as "unfortunate" and a "slip-up". He said:
"There is no doubt that perhaps the Prime Minister had been feeling that this was a British company…but it just turned out to be it wasn't a British company."
Lord Paul believes that this country is at risk from steel imports.
A huge number of unanswered questions relate to the Mittal affair. The premier's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, seems to be the link man, judging by his talks with his friend, Richard Ralph, the British ambassador in Romania, the redrafting of the letter, the signing of the letter and the invitations to donors to come to No. 10. The sell-out of Welsh jobs is not just naive but incredibly damaging. The stench that pervades the whole affair is nauseating. The evasion is sinister, and the drip, drip of information damning.
From Ecclestone to the Hindujas, from Vaz to Byers, this Government have no shame. Mittal is the latest in a long list. Only an independent inquiry will finally put the issue to rest. If the Government have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of, let us have that inquiry now.
3.15 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: First, I heartily endorse all the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about my former colleague and neighbour, the late Sir Ray Powell, and also the words of encouragement for my new neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) who, I am sure, will be my colleague for a very long time. There is no truth in the rumour that both of us were two inches
882
shorter at the end of the by-election campaign than we were at the beginning, or that we were beginning to develop webbed feet, although there was a lot of rain in those three weeks.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is right to say that I want to talk about the heath service in Wales, if only to correct one or two slightly false impressions and the spin that was given to remarks that I made to The Western Mail a couple of weeks ago. This House is responsible for the money that goes to the Welsh Assembly for spending on public services and promoting prosperity in Wales. In addition, this House passes the primary legislation that the Welsh Assembly implements in Wales.
I want to consider the health service in particular because it is fundamental—good health is what people want most of all. In simple money terms, the Government's record is excellent. Since 1997, the rate of increase in spending on the health service year by year has not been far off 10 per cent. Under this Government, and certainly since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, spending on health in Wales has been three or four times above the rate of inflation. Spending has risen from just over £2 billion in 1997, when we came to power, to almost £3.5 billion this year. Next year, it will be almost £3.75 billion.
A lot of money is spent on the health service in Wales—more per capita than in England. In Wales, we spend about 13 per cent. more per capita than is spent in England. Of course, that has implications for how the Barnett formula works. I shall not make that the thrust of my remarks—I merely point out that it is an issue.
Mr. Wiggin: I am curious about how the Barnett formula works. I visited my local hospital and found that at least 10 per cent. of patients in the hospital in Hereford had come over the border from Wales. Is it not true that not only has health spending gone up in Wales but that there is a multiplier effect as Welsh patients are not going to hospital in Wales?
Mr. Griffiths: This is a united kingdom, and there is a flow of patients from both sides of the border. There is no district general hospital in Powys and for many patients the closest hospital is in Hereford. I do not think that we need to make too much of that.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as that has been the situation for many years, it would not distort the figures in the way that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) suggests?
Mr. Griffiths: Not at all. The fundamental issue is that more is spent on health care per capita in Wales than in England, which needs to be considered in the context of the Barnett formula.
I am not revealing anything new today. I first raised the subject more than two years ago, but I am pleased to come back to it because of the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. We also need to consider some of the comparisons between the health of people in Wales and in England. For example, hospital admissions are 18 per cent. higher in Wales than in England and admissions to accident and emergency units are 17 per cent. higher. Some 20 per cent. more prescriptions are issued in Wales

883
per capita than in England. There are 19 per cent. more visits to doctors in Wales than in England. Reporting of long-term illness is 28 per cent. higher in Wales and the mortality rate, adjusted and unadjusted, is also higher. There are 19 per cent. more cancer registrations of men in Wales than in England, and 14 per cent. more for women; and deaths from heart disease are 19 per cent. higher in Wales. It is therefore not surprising that we spend more on health care in Wales.
This illustrates the difficulty that we have in dealing with these problems in Wales. However, we are spending more money and there are a lot of good news stories about the health service in Wales. Tomorrow I believe that the new St. David's hospital will be opened in Cardiff, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). In November of this year a new district general hospital will be open on the Baglan moors in the Bro Morgannwg health trust. The trust covers my constituency but the hospital will primarily serve Aberavon and Neath. A new community hospital has at last been agreed for Porthmadog—we were talking about it when I was a Health Minister in 1997–98—and there will also be a new community hospital in the Rhondda. That is about £35 million worth of investment.
Some £4.5 million has been allocated to the second phase of the children's hospital once the magnificent fund-raising effort has put into place phase 1, which has almost been achieved. There is £6.3 million going towards medical undergraduate facilities at Swansea. To illustrate how long all this takes, the decision was made in 1997–98 to increase the number of medical undergraduates in Wales, and that has to be planned for.
There are more nurses and midwives training and more will be finishing their training over the next few years than ever before. In the professions allied to medicine, there are increases in the numbers in training. The diatribe and criticism of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley cannot be accepted because when the Tories were in power, the number of beds in Wales was reduced and the number of nurses also took a dive. When the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales, he almost reached the point of asset stripping both the physical and intellectual infrastructure of the health service. He left the Welsh health service in a deplorable state.
We are spending £10 million on the upgrade of the cancer facilities at the Singleton hospital at Swansea, with £5.5 million going to the accident and emergency unit at Morriston. Wherever we look, there is a tremendous increase in spending. Things are improving and more staff are coming on-stream, but we must accept, in the words of Dr. Bob Broughton of the British Medical Association, that we have had 20 years of under-investment and it will take a bit of time to turn the ship around. Some 88 additional consultant posts have been made available for Wales and £9 million has been allocated to the new clinical school in Swansea this year.
This year, 10,000 more patients have been treated in the health service than the year before. However, we have to accept that waiting lists in some areas are increasing. Fortunately, we can see a chink of light at the end of this gloomy and difficult tunnel: in areas where the Welsh Assembly has begun to target the waiting lists for heart disease and cataract operations, there has been a small reduction. Because I know that the Welsh Assembly is focusing on other areas as well, I am confident that over
884
the next few years we will see a gradual improvement. I emphasise that it will be gradual because it takes time to get the staff in place for this work to be done. Even today there are many consultant posts in Wales waiting to be filled, not because they have not been advertised but because it is difficult to find the people to fill them. We need to be patient.
The Western Mail has said that £500 million more could have been available to spend on the health service in Wales over the past five years. Instead of saying that those figures are calculations of my own, it might be more accurate to say that I dumped all the information published by the NHS Executive on the cost of the 100 most popular hospital in-patient and day-case treatments on my assistants and asked them to work on those figures. What they came up with is that in 1996–97, if all hospitals in Wales had reached the average for just those treatments carried out in every hospital, there would have been a saving of about £24 million which could have been invested in the health service. If all hospitals had reached the average of the best three, the saving would have been almost £100 million which could have been invested in the health services in Wales.
I was trying to tell The Western Mail that if the Welsh Assembly were to look carefully at where hospitals were most efficient and effective in carrying out their work, it would be possible to have substantial additional funds available to spend on the health service in Wales and make a significant impact on waiting lists. In fact, I have already put that point to the Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt. Over a five-year period, I guess that between £400 million and £500 million could have been invested in the health service in Wales. The Welsh Assembly is looking at these specific problems and I am sure that we will see an expansion of the hospitals which are proving to be the most effective in Wales. Therefore, I am encouraged by what is happening. Despite some of the gloomy headline statistics, I believe that the chinks of light showing in matters such as heart disease and cataracts will be rolled out across other specialisms. I am confident that in four or five years we will see a much improved health service in Wales that we will be happy talking to our constituents about.
Mr. Wiggin: What does the hon. Gentleman think about the increased bureaucracy? I appreciate that he did not research those figures himself, but the principle is laudable. I am curious because the five health authorities will be abolished in April next year to be replaced by 22 local health boards with similar powers. Those will be backed by as many as 12 partnerships and three area offices. The latest plan for health in Wales is to replace the five existing health authorities with 37 organisations. It is hard to understand how the Government have managed to increase spending by so much and achieve so little. In the words of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies)—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Interventions are meant to be short.
Mr. Griffiths: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the additional spending has resulted in 10,000 more treatments a year in Wales. That is significant. On restructuring the health service, he might know that I do not think that the plan is right at the moment. However,

885
his description of it traduces what is meant to happen in Wales. There is a commitment that no more money should be spent on bureaucracy. I remain confident that we will make progress and that better health care will be provided year on year.
3.31 pm
Lembit Öpik: I welcome the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) to the Chamber and congratulate him on beating the Liberal Democrat candidate, Veronica Watkins. I only regret that I do not know enough about him to take advantage of the fact that he cannot intervene prior to making his maiden speech. I simply pay tribute to his predecessor, Ray Powell. Some said that he was an unguided missile or a loose cannon, and he was described as a wild man by the media and uncontrollable by the Whips. I have every hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue in that tradition and perhaps one day join the Liberal Democrats.
Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lembit Öpik: I cannot resist it.
Kevin Brennan: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) cannot intervene, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain to me why a leaflet on which his picture appeared on the day of the by-election called my hon. Friend "London's Labour lackey"? Is not that typical Liberal Democrat politics—sneer locally, creep nationally?
Lembit Öpik: It hurts me to the core to have offended the hon. Gentleman and, believe it or not, I have something to say about that kind of politics, and not just to Labour Members, but to Members of my party too. I hope that hon. Members will be greatly interested in my comments.
It has been a good year for the Liberal Democrats in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) took over from his predecessor and we made good progress elsewhere. Indeed, I managed to win a hotly contested election to lead my party on Welsh matters and prevented splits in the parliamentary party by immediately appointing my hon. Friend as my deputy, having considered the alternatives.
I said that the comment by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) was poignant. My speech is directed not just at Welsh politicians or the Welsh public, but at the Welsh press. I ask all three groups to think seriously about the concepts that I am about to advance. Politicians are doing something wrong. If we get things right, perhaps we will help to resuscitate the lost confidence in the trade that we have chosen as our career.
My speech is also directed at other parties, including my party in Wales. I want people to think seriously about the potential for turning politics into a competition, not a war. I question the way in which we run down the character of our trade and then feign surprise when people do not turn out to vote or disappointment when the media imply that we are all on the make and that we do not act in the interests of the people who elected us.
886
At a press conference in the Cardiff Assembly last Monday, I was accused of patronising the Welsh press. Most of the journalists were interested in the story relating to Mike German and the possibility of a reshuffle. They asked the same question again and again. After we answered it, I suggested that the issue lacked resonance with the Welsh public and that people really wanted to talk about things that made a difference to them. It got quite heated. It seems I had disturbed a hornet's nest by questioning the ability of the press to report news that matters. The journalists thought that I was suggesting that they should not report on the matter that interested them.
Afterwards, I went to the media floor in the Assembly to make amends with one of the people who felt most patronised. She told me that she also regarded me as naive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name names."] I will not because Jo told me not to. She claimed that I was angry with her, to which I shouted, "No, I'm not", and proved her point. It struck me later that the exchange was the opposite of what I had in mind for a new agenda in Welsh politics. It is with humility—I take some of the responsibility on myself—that I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members seriously consider launching a campaign in Wales, ahead of anywhere else in the United Kingdom, to change the way in which we do politics.
As I think about the accusations of naivety and being patronising, I realise that they were said in response to a problem that we have created. For whatever reason, the agenda has become so set in convention that aggression, opposition, spin and negative briefing about each other have become so acceptable that efforts to try a new way of doing things are dismissed as naive and even idealistic. Is the new focus on politics in Wales so unfeasible that we are not going to make a difference? Is Welsh politics so doomed to remain as it is that my speech today might again be regarded as naive?
Mr. Wiggin: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman's party will no longer be in a coalition with the Labour party in the Welsh Assembly?
Lembit Öpik: The context of that question is so odd that I am unable to understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that a positive new style of politics would prevent parties from working together. Surely he realises that if politics is a competition and not a war, one works in league with other people and other parties when that best serves the public interest. Obviously one maintains a healthy critical capability when appropriate.
Wales has another golden opportunity to lead the way in conducting politics differently. At the heart of the new agenda, about which we talked so optimistically when the referendum was held on the Welsh Assembly, must be the concept of focusing on outcomes rather than process. The public do not care much about the political process. Why should they? Those who are most interested in the political process get involved in it. The rest pay tax in the expectation that we manage the political process to achieve the outcomes that we were elected to achieve. That is the point of paying the tax that enables politicians to be employed. We often forget that and settle into the comfortable arguments that take place in the House, perhaps drawing the media into that club at the same time. We forget that the true client of our activities is getting switched off by what we say and disillusioned by the fact that politicians seem more interested in attacking each other than working together in the interests of Wales.

887
I have given the matter a great deal of thought and have decided that the failing of the system is really a failing of politicians to lead the thinking of the nation of Wales. We fail to provide a motivating, inspirational, powerful and visionary agenda that the media naturally gravitate towards. We should be talking about an agenda that is likely to succeed—a vision that is secondary to the people driving it, who are focused on the results that it can achieve.
That is the big point for me. With the focus in the press on individuals, scurrilous stories and questions of corruption, we have begun to reap the consequences of our attitudes and behaviour towards each other. Very rarely do the great achievements of the human race rest on the memory of an individual. The great achievement of the Apollo moon landing was travelling to the moon, landing a man on it and returning him safely to earth. The individual concerned happened to be Neil Armstrong, but the triumph was collective.
Mr. Bryant: Is it not ironic that, despite his fine sentiments about it being more important for us to talk about outcomes than processes, so far, apart from mention of the moon, which was a little dangerous coming from him, he has talked solely about processes and not said anything about the conditions facing the people in Wales?
Lembit Öpik: I recognise that I was taking a risk in trying to talk about the character of politics in Wales and that it is unconventional of me to try to reintroduce an element of soul and a different modus operandi in Welsh politics. The hon. Gentleman can listen to the rest of my speech to determine whether I should refer explicitly to health, education and so forth. This seemed too good an opportunity to lose to share my thinking on what I consider to be an important matter. I shall certainly respect further interventions from the hon. Gentleman and others on the point.
Kevin Brennan: I respect the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman is putting his case, but is he telling the House that, from now on, locally delivered Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflets will contain the high-minded moral politics that he is advocating? Will he make that pledge now?
Lembit Öpik: I can most certainly give the hon. Gentleman the pledge that all the "Focus" leaflets that I personally write will be exactly along those lines, but let me make a serious point. I said at the beginning of my speech that I am not condemning other parties for their lack of vision or for succumbing to the temptation to demean Welsh politics, but that I am speaking to, among others, members of my party. Indeed, as the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who has not been dragged to his place because he is some prime offender in the party, to engage in that process. I emphasise, for exactly the reason to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that I am speaking to my party and inviting Welsh Liberal Democrats to consider the points that I am making. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has already read my speech; his presence indicates assent—[Laughter.]
I return to examples of great triumphs that are not associated with the names of the individuals concerned. Lloyd George, who of course created pensions, was not
888
remembered by most members of the public who receive pensions as having done so. We have heard about Nye Bevan and the national health service, although I would point out that the great Liberal, William Beveridge, gave him the idea in the first place. Examples of individuals being associated with personal triumphs or personal armies of visionaries are rare.
On account of his obsession with leeks, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) might be remembered for an army of leekers who go around the country swapping metric measures for imperial ones, just as Robert Peel is remembered for creating the police—peelers. Indeed, constables are called bobbies in honour of his first name.
Mr. Evans: What has name-calling got to do with the first 10 minutes of the hon. Gentleman's speech?
Lembit Öpik: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would take my remarks in the same jovial spirit in which he made his comments. It was a tentative joke; I should have known better. I apologise to the House in order to avoid having to make a personal statement later because he did not laugh.
In talking about the difference between outcomes and focusing on individuals, I should like right hon. and hon. Members to consider two crucial and fundamental points. First, the obsession with gossiping about each other in the press and attempts to drag down individuals has arisen because ideology in Welsh and, indeed, British political life has evaporated. We cannot blame the media for taking on the agenda that we have set.
We saw a good example of that when the hon. Member for Ribble Valley sought to criticise the Government on the continuing Mittal matter and to imply a degree of wrongdoing on their part. Although it is perfectly legitimate for any Opposition party to raise such matters—indeed, perhaps it is our responsibility to do so—emphasising them for a third of a speech is very tricky when the speaker comes from the same political party that has been tarnished time and again as a result of bringing the name of politics into disrepute. It is just possible that the Conservative party can score some points from the Labour party on the matter, but there is little doubt that the ultimate loser is our profession, because the public do not make the fine distinctions that we are able to make in debates on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Evans: What about Mike German?
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman mentions Mike German and is no doubt referring to the continuing police inquiry into alleged matters with regard to that individual. What is the political benefit to us as serious politicians of implying guilt when an inquiry is being conducted exactly to establish such circumstances? Every individual in the House surely accords in their heart with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. There is no benefit or upside to implying the guilt of an individual before an inquiry has even been done. The hon. Gentleman highlights exactly the kind of thing that we do to each other and have all done from time to time. Ultimately, however, the true loser is Welsh political life.
Mr. Bryant: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman that in all matters it is right for politicians, as in any line

889
of business, to be judged fairly and, indeed, swiftly. In the incident to which he has referred, I wish that there could be a swift resolution of the police proceedings, as slow justice is no justice for a politician. However, does he think that it is right or wrong for politicians to try to intervene on behalf of people in their party in processes in which the police are engaged?
Lembit Öpik: I assume that there is a deeper intent in that question. The hon. Gentleman can be more explicit if he wants me to answer a specific question. It seems self-evident from what I am saying and from what we all believe that it would not be right to try in any way to corrupt an investigation. I do not think that anyone would disagree with what he and I have just said.
I turn to the important distinction between taking a more positive and perhaps more principled attitude to politics, and maintaining the critical faculties that the Government and Opposition parties must maintain. It is fair to criticise the Government for their ineffectiveness in, for example, fixing rundown public services, but we do not engender any faith or confidence in the public by running down other political parties when one's own party has not done any better. It is all very well to criticise the failings of any individual organisation, but it is incumbent on the critic to indicate a better way of proceeding.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was asked a direct question about taxation while criticising the Government on the matter, but he was not willing to answer it. He suggested that savings and best practice would be a way of finding the extra money in the health service, but I do not know of a single political party that stood for the 2001 general election suggesting that worst or second-best practice was acceptable.
In the serious debate, once we get into it, we have to provide serious alternatives if we suggest that there is a different way to do things. [HON. MEMBERS: "What would you do?"] Conservative Members ask a good question. They can see what I would do. As the House knows, the Liberal-Democrat-led coalition in Cardiff is doing tremendous work and achieving significant outcomes for the people of Wales—everything from implementing a more equitable student funding arrangement to securing effective economic performance, from achieving what I believe was a better performance than the UK average in response to the foot and mouth crisis to introducing the Children's Commissioner for Wales, from abolishing museum charges to introducing free school milk. All those things show that it is possible to work with another party in the interests of the public while simultaneously maintaining an independent identity. Right hon. and hon. Members have busily campaigned for the new sort of politics. Part of that is accepting that in the competition of multi-party politics, one can still work in league in a positive fashion and deliver results that are far more meaningful to the public than much of the debate held in this Chamber.
That does not mean that one has to abandon one's ability to criticise. There is currently a big debate going on in the House about taxation. Personally, I believe that direct taxation is the fairest form of taxation, but there are differences of view in both my party and the Labour party. However, we will never make progress in that debate if
890
most of the time the issue is used as a political battering ram by different political parties. People are switched off by such an approach.
I believe that it is probably necessary to increase taxation a little bit to achieve a better health service. However, my saying that raises the danger that, instead of a rational debate in the pub—[Laughter.] Fair enough—I meant to say that instead of a rational debate in the public domain, all that happens is that the arguments are reduced to a simple yah-boo debate about whether one is in favour of increasing taxation or reducing it. That is patronising to the public, who would be far more interested in hearing the arguments for or against. That is shown by the example of my party, which was the only one that went into the general election explicitly committed to increasing direct income tax; we gained more seats than any other party in the 2001 general election.
Of the two crucial points I want to highlight, the first is balance and the second is that, as long as we continue to be sceptical about our ability to change the way in which we conduct politics, that change will not happen. I was asked to whom I am addressing my remarks today. I am saying to members of my party in Wales, and to right hon. and hon. Members present today and members of their parties in Wales, that it is up to us to decide whether to carry on with the same old tired yah-boo politics with which the public are clearly disillusioned, or to give a different type of politics a chance.
I entered politics because I believe that politics can perform a positive and important function to improve the quality of people's lives. I did not enter politics to slam, rubbish and run down people in other parties who are themselves genuinely committed to the same goals. I became a Member of Parliament because I believed—my belief has been confirmed—that thanks to our proud democracy, some of the best brains and most sincere and committed individuals in the country end up here. I am of course pointing at the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Mr. Bryant: There is only one person there.
Lembit Öpik: Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have to rule on whether two people constitutes "some", but I am willing to accord the compliment to other hon. Members present.
The House knows exactly what I mean. We have wonderful debates, and honest and sometimes sincere conversations that would make us politically vulnerable if others heard them, when we are outside the Chamber. Sadly, we sometimes leave our mutual respect at the door and take any opportunity to run down each other's party because we believe that we will derive political advantage from doing so. We can carry on doing that if that is what we want to do; we can carry on messing about, and then getting the business done when we are not in the Chamber. Alternatively, we can start trying to discover what the Welsh public want to hear from Welsh Members of Parliament, and what sort of outcomes would restore the Welsh people's confidence to the extent that they vote in higher numbers. We can decide whether we want to continue to behave in a manner that has made it acceptable in the media to say things like, "This MP was proved to have lied, but what do you expect from a politician?" Alternatively, we can challenge that and say that we are, on the whole, honourable individuals who are genuinely trying to do the right thing.

891
I recently wrote an article in which I asked what is missing from politics? That question prompted many responses from around the country. Zöe Phillips said compassion; Derek Phillips, conviction; Fred Davies, openness and initiatives; Prue Bray, trust; Paul Wheeler vision and passion. Funnily enough, none said that there should be more short speeches, although one said that what was needed in politics was more people like me. Few Estonians are likely to stand at the next general election, but I have noted the comment. A chap called Bill Schardt offered three answers: issues, community and solutions.
However cynical Members of Parliament might be about my choice of subject, I ask them to take my words seriously. It was not an easy choice to tackle what lies at the heart of the disillusionment in Welsh political life—especially given that I know that there will be a degree of doubt about the nature of my contribution to the St. David's day debate—but if I had not done this, no one else would have. If I am not prepared to say to my party and others that we should start to focus on the outcomes that matter to people, there is little chance of change.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, there you have it. My deal with other Members of Parliament is that I will do what I can to make sure that "Focus" publications across Wales reflect the approach that I have described today. I am not a dictator—I cannot force people to do that—[Interruption.] A rebellion is breaking out behind me. I will also try to ensure that the high principles I have outlined are reflected in the activities of Liberal Democrat politicians in Wales. I cannot promise to succeed, but I can promise the House this: if we all work together, we will succeed. Perhaps, just once, we could all be a little more high minded than to try to score points when other people are doing their best to serve this country and Wales. Were we to do that, we might actually be thanked by people who believe that it is too long since true vision guided politics. Through our efforts in Wales, we might make 21st-century politics a little less disappointing to the people who pay our salaries.
3.58 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies: I am grateful for this opportunity. It is with great pride and not a little humility that I rise to make my maiden speech. My pride is not of a selfish kind: it is born of the recognition of the proud history of Labour socialist parliamentarians from Wales, past and present, who have fought for working people, fought injustice in all forms, and fought for a better future for all regardless of chance of birth or of privilege. I feel humility as I take my first few faltering steps as a Member of Parliament, because I know that I have an immense debt to repay to the people of Ogmore who have placed their trust in me. I will strive to serve them to the best of my ability at all times and in all my actions.
Before progressing, may I add my own tribute to those already made today to the late Sir Ray Powell, a loyal servant of the Labour party who represented Ogmore in Parliament from 1979? He championed the rights of grandparents in the Grandparents Rights Bill, which was a major influence on the subsequent Children Act 1989. He championed the rights of shop workers during the Sunday trading debates and was influential, as we have already heard, in the development of Portcullis House. I never met Sir Ray Powell, and I am sure that if I had, we would not have agreed on everything, but his reputation as
892
an outspoken parliamentarian on behalf of the people of Ogmore and a true champion of his communities is a legacy in which his widow Marion and his daughter Janice Gregory, Assembly Member for Ogmore, can take great pride. Let us honour Sir Ray Powell and all those parliamentarians and advocates of social justice and opportunity for all who have represented Ogmore since 1918, including Walter Padley, Vernon Hartshorn and others.
I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to my uncle, the late I for Davies, Member of Parliament for Gower for many years and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales. He spoke many times in the Chamber, and was a man of dignity, intelligence and vision, a thoroughly decent and truly honourable man. He is fondly remembered by his family and all those who knew him; I hope am a credit to him in the House, as well as to my parents, my wife and all those who sent me here.
I have the immense privilege of representing the people of Ogmore, a landlocked community of diverse character; it ranges from the former mining communities of the Garw, Llynfi and Ogmore valleys, not forgetting the communities of Gilfach Goch and Evanstown. It also stretches down, as has been mentioned, to more rural areas and the busy communities of Pencoed, Tondu, Llanharan and Sarn that border the M4. In the hinterland, the communities of Bettws, Llangeinor, Blackmill and Shwt nestle at the base of the three valleys. Ogmore is a diverse community.
Ogmore is also the home of many myths, legends and heroes. In Llangynwyd at new year the skull of a horse with a white shroud—the Mari Llywd—is paraded to fend off evil spirits. My colleagues back in Ogmore have said it has worked politically since 1918. Llangynwyd is also the home of the famous tragedy known as the "Maid of Cefn Ydfa" and the romantic protagonists are buried at Llangynwyd church. Llangeinor was the birthplace, in 1723, of the radical thinker Dr. Richard Price, whose treatises on liberty and the American revolution were influential in the development of the American constitution. He was renowned for walking to London at the age of 18. I will not try to emulate that trek, but I shall travel regularly by train. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will take the same time."] Indeed. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for attempting to reverse the shameful fiasco of rail privatisation and under-investment over many years.
A fortnight ago, a Welsh Sunday paper curiously speculated that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) and I were jointly to coach the Welsh team after the sudden departure of Graham Henry. As we approach Dydd Gwyl Dewi—St. David's day—and the Welsh international against Italy, I hope that the spirit of our local legendary rugby heroes will inspire the Welsh team. J. J. Williams, Chico Hopkins, John Devereaux, Scott Gibbs, Alan Bateman and many others show the formidable talent that we have on the sporting field in Ogmore.
The legacy of song is powerful, as the Welsh national anthem "Hen Wlad fy Nhadau" is thought to have been first sung in public in a chapel in Maesteg in 1856. In addition to our excellent local choirs, it may come as a surprise to hon. Members that we lay claim to Kylie Minogue, whose mother and grandmother reside in the Ogmore constituency. The legacy is continued as new

893
talent emerges. Big Shiny Cave, a local band of youngsters, are soon to be in the national televised finals of a contest for bands. I wish them the best of luck and look forward to welcoming them to Westminster.
Names of famous collieries are testament to the mining heritage of the area and resonate down the years: Ocean, Wyndham, Western, and others. The seam opened by the Wyndham colliery brought forth coal known as "Best Admiralty Large" which fired the Navy's steamships in world war one; it was regarded as the best seam of such coal in south Wales, if not the world.
As a keen hill walker, I can testify to the rugged beauty of the hills and valleys of Ogmore, and the picturesque settings of the country parks and lowlands. After extensive reclamation after the years of heavy industry and mining, the valleys are returning to their natural beauty. With my background as a lecturer in tourism, I cannot fail to see the potential for tourism and recreation in Ogmore, which is rich in natural beauty, industrial heritage, culture and folklore. Tourism is not the only way forward, but it adds a vital spark to the regeneration of an area, and can transform the image of a region.
The classic film "The Proud Valley" was filmed in the Garw valley and starred Paul Robeson, the famous African-American athlete, singer and actor, and a keen advocate of civil rights. He rightly regarded the film as his finest. More recently "Very Annie Mary" was filmed in the Garw valley in 1999, featuring one of our best local choirs, the Ogmore Valley male voice choir.
There is a link to the future too. Paul Robeson and the film industry are relevant as we look and hope for the development in the near future of a major film complex on the site of a former opencast mine. I will lend my full support to the relevant Labour Member in the Welsh Assembly in that endeavour, and invite my fellow Welsh MPs to do so. Not only would the complex lead to direct job creation: it would transform the image of a region and a country through the powerful medium of movies. The impact on tourism is well understood.
One of the most exciting aspects of community life in Ogmore is the role that voluntary groups and regeneration partnerships play in holding communities together, particularly as they go through transformations, with an ageing and declining population, the relocation of jobs and the challenges of leisure provision for youngsters and the aged. Grassroots organisations often best understand local demands, and need our encouragement and moreover our practical support. The Blaengarw Workmen's hall and the Berwyn centre in Nantymoel, and all the activities that take place there, epitomise the success story of community regeneration that is seen throughout Ogmore.
Volunteers and dedicated staff on limited funds are pulling together to make a real difference to their communities. There are drop-in centres in Llanharran and Maesteg, the latter achieving excellent results with youngsters who dropped out of the education system and the establishment. The youth group in Nantyffyllon repairs vandalised benches and bus shelters. At the Boys and Girls Club in Nantymoel, which I have visited, 80 youngsters meet four times a week; I saw them hanging from the rafters and engaged in a range of activities. Much valuable work goes on and deserves praise and credit.
894
I appeal to the Secretary of State for Wales to liaise with our colleagues in the National Assembly and relevant agencies further to develop the funding mechanisms that would reward the success stories of the voluntary and charitable sectors, especially those that work in our poorest communities, by encouraging the streamlining of applications for lottery funding and other grants and building on the generational funding that is such a success in the Communities First programme.
Ogmore is diverse, not only in landscape and people, but in prosperity and life chances. Some parts have experienced inward investment, infrastructure development and population growth; it is vital to continue that growth, as it benefits the whole constituency. However, we also have pockets of multiple deprivation, with more children living in poverty, lower levels of educational attainment, lower pay, poor-quality housing and higher numbers of people on income replacement benefits. Those factors combine to give a lower quality of life, a lower life expectancy, and a higher rate of mortality. It does not have to be that way; it should not be that way. I am determined that that will not continue, and I know that my Labour colleagues are equally determined.
I am proud to represent the Labour party, which has established a national minimum wage that some Opposition parties could not find time to support. That, combined with the working families tax credit, has put £30 per week on average into the purses of the poorest families in Ogmore. It is not a fortune, but it makes it pay to work, and it puts more food on the table.
I am proud to represent the Labour party that has delivered an above-inflation and above-earnings increase in pensions, and provided the £200 winter fuel payment for all pensioner households and free television licences for over-75-year-olds.
I am proud to represent the party that has agreed the largest ever compensation settlement in western European history in respect of miners' compensation, after years of prevarication and denial of liability from the Tories. Let me assure hon. Members present that I shall be working with fellow Labour Members of Parliament representing mining communities throughout the UK to ensure that full and final payment is made as swiftly as possible and in every single case.
As a GMB member, I am proud to represent the party that has a long tradition of co-operation with the unions and promotion of the public sector. Long may it continue, and long may we continue to work together with the unions to promote the best interests of the public who receive our services, and the workers who play such a crucial role in delivering those vital services.
On these and many other issues, I am proud to represent a party that delivers social justice in a real and pragmatic way, but there is more to be done. Nye Bevan described himself as a pragmatic idealist. He believed in getting things done to improve the lot of other people, and that meant dealing in reality, not in utopian visions. I will strive to work with the Labour Government in Westminster, and in close liaison with the National Assembly and local authority, and with all the agencies and the voluntary sector to bring real improvements to the lives of the people of Ogmore.

895
Let me finish by thanking again the people of Ogmore for their trust, and acknowledging the supreme efforts of my team, who fought a positive campaign and worked hard to present a positive message for the future of Ogmore, and the future of our children and grandchildren.
The Ogmore by-election was the 10th since Labour's massive mandate in the general election in 1997. It was the 10th to take place, and the 10th that Labour has won, and won decisively. I make these simple observations in closing: there are still no Tory MPs in Wales, and apart from the special circumstances surrounding the by-election caused by the death of our late right hon. Friend Donald Dewar, this was the worst result of any nationalist challenge since 1997. That is echoing so loudly through the valleys of south Wales that it can be heard in Scotland as well.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House with my maiden speech, particularly on the occasion of the Welsh day debate. I look forward to many other occasions when I may catch the Speaker's eye, and further the concerns of my constituents and the cause of social justice in Wales, the United Kingdom, and worldwide. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.
4.13 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on a confident and interesting speech—erroneous in parts, but a good speech well delivered, which I am sure augurs well for him.
I also visited Ogmore, of course, unsuccessfully, and I got wet a few times as well. I come from Snowdonia, so I know what rain is all about, but with such rain every day, I could not understand why the Ogmore farmers do not grow rice. I found that the Conservative candidate was terribly wet. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore sincerely on his speech.
I shall speak about objective 1 funding in Wales and the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. One of the main issues that has concerned the National Assembly and been highlighted in recent weeks is the disparity in funds allocated to the 15 local partnerships. Evidence from the funding allocated to the 447 projects approved thus far demonstrates clearly that some of the more prosperous—if I may so describe them—parts of the objective 1 area seem to be doing well in terms of allocation per head, but those in the most deprived areas are doing badly. It is extremely worrying that the funds are not getting through to the areas most in need. That might well create a problem in achieving the increases in gross domestic product that it was hoped would result from objective 1.
I consider, as does my party, that ways must be found to achieve a more balanced allocation, so that every part of the objective 1 area benefits more equitably from the funding. That is why Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, highlighted the need to set more regional economic targets for the Welsh economy. Regional targets are essential if we are to ensure more balanced development. Adopting targets only for the objective 1 area as a whole and for the non-objective 1 area will not succeed in gaining the necessary increase in GDP. Ways must be found to target the most deprived areas.
One relevant factor is the quality of the local partnerships and the varying amounts of experience in preparing applications for European funding. Action such
896
as more training for local partnerships that are under-performing must be undertaken urgently. What is the Welsh European Funding Office doing to address the problem?
The current financial position is that by the end of December 2001, commitments totalling £288.5 million have been made. However, the indicative financial allocation set for the end of December 2001 in the single programming document was £347.92 million. There is thus a shortfall of more than £59 million. The programme is about £60 million behind schedule.
The reasons given for that do not stack up. In a paper recently presented by WEFO to the Economic Development Committee of the National Assembly on 16 January, it was stated that
"a key factor in not yet allocating funds up to the level of the Indicative Financial Allocation set out in the SPD was the decision by the Infrastructure Partnership and the Business Assets Strategy Partnership to spend sufficient time developing an Infrastructure Strategy before allocating grant."
The truth is that it took two years for an infrastructure partnership to be set up in the first place. In 2000 the Labour Government in Cardiff instructed the Welsh Development Agency to set up seven regional partnerships to use objective 1 money, but three crucial sectors were omitted: energy, transport, and infrastructure for information and communications technology.
Over the past two years the matter has been brought up time and again, but the Executive have done nothing about it. As a direct result, it was impossible to apply for money for projects in those sectors during the first two years of the programme. We hear in this place how important infrastructure and ICT are, but we are being held back.
In the course of my speech, I shall put numerous questions to the Secretary of State. I do not expect that he or the Minister who winds up will be able to address them all, but I would appreciate a response in the form of a letter in due course. I do not mean to be unreasonable, but I am sure that these are matters of common interest to all who are concerned about the Welsh economy.
As I said, applications could not be made for money for the three sectors that I specified. The delay became unacceptable and has undoubtedly contributed towards increasing the gap between the indicative financial allocation and the commitments already made up to the end of 2001. That demonstrates the incompetence of the Government in Wales in running the objective 1 programme.
It is estimated that more than 30 partnerships and committees are directly involved in administering the programme. There are 15 local partnerships, 10 regional partnerships, one programme monitoring committee and four strategy partnerships. On 18 January, the chair of the monitoring committee announced the establishment of two new groups—a monitoring group and an advisory group on implementation. With so many bodies, it is no surprise that people are confused about the whole process. Apparently, the private sector had had enough months ago, when the Confederation of British Industry decided that it would not actively participate in the programme, saying that business people did not have the time to attend meetings and spend hours attempting to find their way through the process.
I know that the issue has a resonance across the political spectrum and there is a need to simplify matters in order to proceed as quickly as we can. There is a danger

897
of the whole process being hijacked by local authorities. It seems that those who know how to play the game, as it were, are doing well, but the danger of that for small organisations is that if they are out of favour with a local authority, there is not much chance of their being successful in their applications.
It is unhelpful to compare our performance with that of other UK regions that are in receipt of objective 1 assistance. Such comparison is unfair and pointless because each area has different problems and a different way of tackling them. However, we should be comparing the performance of our programme with our targets, as set out in the single programming document. As the failure to reach the indicative final allocation anticipated by the end of 2001 shows, it is evident from such comparison that we must improve our performance, and fast.
There is significant under-commitment in priority 5 of the programme, which concentrates on rural development and sustainable use of natural resources. Several hon. Members have mentioned problems in rural areas. The problems should be highlighted and we should deal with them urgently. Measure 7 of that priority, which targets enhancement and protection of the natural environment and countryside management projects, is seriously under-committed. Will the Secretary of State liaise with the WEFO and the First Minister about that? We need to encourage the establishment of quality projects under that aspect of the programme, and the need is greater now because of the fallout of foot and mouth, and so on.
We must emphasise the need to establish a wider sense of ownership of the programme. Action needs to be taken to ensure that some of the big players, such as the WDA, do not feel that they own it. The process tends to be finance-driven rather than policy-driven, and there is genuine fear that that will continue, as the new regulations introduced for 2000 to 2006 exert annual pressure to demonstrate that money is being spent and require proof of spending at the end of every two years. The whole programme may well be preoccupied with the need to spend, and concentrate on that instead of quality. There is a need to shift from a finance-led approach to a policy-led approach.
We also need to de-bureaucratise the process. It must be dug out of the realm of civil servants. There are concerns that elected Members of the National Assembly and the Economic Development Committee in particular do not have a sufficient role in the process, and that it is dominated by the Government of Wales and officials. Of course, the Assembly as a whole should have a role. Perhaps it could undertake an annual review to consider how EU programmes are progressing. That work could be done in a wider framework of considering domestic performance policy as well. Such an arrangement would obviously provide an opportunity for approved integration and cohesiveness between the European Union and domestic programmes of the sort that has been lacking in the past, and would also avoid duplication. The Assembly as a whole should have overall control of all European Union programmes, as it should ensure that objective 1 contributes to overall economic development in Wales. A lack of overall strategy in the objective 1 SPD, with the lack of adequate baseline data and cohesion between strategy, priorities and the measures within them, directly resulted from the fact that no overall national economic
898
development strategy was in place. Such a strategy should have been in place at the beginning of the National Assembly's work. It would have guided the preparation of objective 1 and other important programmes.
That leads me to the comprehensive spending review. As we know, the Chancellor's CSR is due for publication later this year. It will set out the funding arrangement for 2004 to 2007, and will therefore cover the second half of the objective 1 programme. In effect, it will determine how much funding Wales will receive not only as part of Barnett, but—we hope—in the form of additional resources to cover EU funds.
Will the Secretary of State guarantee that Wales will receive additional resources over and above Barnett to meet the EU funds that we are entitled to draw down? What discussions has he had with the First Minister about the need to ensure that Wales will receive the full amount of resources, in addition to the block grant, to cover all EU funds that we are entitled to draw down? What discussions has he had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on this issue? Last time, we did not receive the full amount necessary to draw down all the European funding or any additional resources to match fund the projects, so we must call for an additional allocation on top of the block grant. I am fully aware that the Secretary of State knows that, and I hope that he will lobby as hard as he can. I know that it is a difficult issue and that there are other competing claims on Treasury moneys, but I ask him please to listen. This is an opportunity that Wales must not miss, for the good of the whole objective 1 area and beyond.
The mid-term evaluation of the objective 1 programme in 2003 offers the opportunity to reconsider the priorities and measures and the financial allocations that they contain. What discussions will the Secretary of State have with the First Minister on the mid-term evaluation of objective 1 funding? What discussions has he had with the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the next round of European structural funds from 2006 onwards? What guarantees can he and the First Minister give that they will ensure that the interests of Wales—it has to be said that they differ from those of the UK Government—will be heard? It is not in the interests of the UK Government to argue for increases in the amount of structural funding that is allocated to the UK, because, as we know, the Fontainebleau agreement acts as a disincentive. Welsh interests differ from those of the UK Government as far as the next round of funding is concerned. My party believes that the principle of additionality must and should be applied to each individual programme, instead of only at the member state level, to ensure that structural funding is additional to domestic funding. The baseline for the future financing of the structural funds should be increased from the current 0.45 per cent. of EU gross domestic product to at least 0.65 per cent. The money could be found by moving resources from the common agricultural policy. However, we would oppose any moves to renationalise regional policy, as there must be a strong regional dimension in cohesion policy.
Since the last comprehensive spending review, Wales has received, on average, an extra £140 million a year above the Barnett block to cover the extra cost of EU grants. Of course, that is welcome. It has gone fairly far, but it has not gone far enough to pave the way for drawing down all the European structural funds and using them to

899
their full potential. Of course, extra money is welcome, but we need more money again. I know that the Secretary of State hears such views all the time, but in the context of this particular debate, I must point out that it is absolutely vital for a substantial addition to be made to the Welsh block grant. I am not telling him anything that he does not know himself; but it is none the less vital.
Some petty politics has been going on on both sides of the House. Some claim that the extra money is the much-needed match funding, but unfortunately, it is not. This is the money that is given to Wales by Europe. Unfortunately, it has to go through the Treasury first. In order to use the money, it is necessary to match the amount in addition to its usual budget—the infamous match funding. Unfortunately, we have not seen a penny of that money from the Treasury, and it has to be drawn down from the various departmental budgets, which are already stretched to their limits in the National Assembly. I doubt whether any match funding will be provided by the Treasury in the next CSR unless the Secretary of State and the First Minister lobby hard to urge upon the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor the need to provide these much-needed funds so that the European grants can be used to their full potential and the National Assembly does not have to rob Peter to pay Paul. I congratulate the Chancellor on providing the European component of grants in addition to the Barnett block in the last CSR. I urge the Secretary of State to ask the Chancellor to continue that precedent by doing the same again this year.
We are approaching a make-or-break period for the structural fund programmes. They have been slow to start and it has taken some time to get the infrastructure in place. Academics, economists and politicians on all sides realise that we are now in the middle of the seven-year process and that this is an important time. The last CSR covered two to four years of the European funding programme and provided a welcome £140 million on top of Barnett. During the middle years of the programme, most of the grants come from Europe. We therefore hope and expect that there will be a significant increase in the funds that are made available in this year's CSR. Plaid Cymru's Professor Phil Williams AM, has carried out research estimating that an additional £62 million a year will be needed to cover the increased level of European grants allocated to Wales in the next few years.
The Secretary of State obviously appreciates the importance of the issue. I urge him to lobby his colleagues along the lines that I have suggested and ask him to bear in mind the special needs involved in the programme. I know that he is aware of them; I am merely reminding him. Will he make objective 1 a real success throughout Wales?
4.31 pm
Mr. Martin Caton: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his excellent speech. He clearly has a valuable role to play in the House in future. I felt proud as I listened to him because he is from Gowerton stock in my constituency. He may be Ogmore man today, but he was Gower boy. That is why I know that he will be especially interested in the subject that I shall talk about in the few minutes that I have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cockles."] Correct.
900
Tomorrow is St. David's day, and many restaurants, hotels and pubs in the Swansea area will offer specifically Welsh menus—many of them very imaginative and extremely mouth-watering, and some of them involving Welsh cockles. Unfortunately, however, they will not be local Penclawdd cockles, because as I said at Welsh questions yesterday, since last July the Burry inlet cockle shellfishery has in effect been closed.
I guess that if one asked most people who live in Swansea and the surrounding area, or even tourists who have visited it, to list the things that they associate with Gower, cockles would be fairly near the top of most of those lists. Many, when that came to mind, would not think of a small bivalve mollusc. They would have a mental picture from before the war of hardy cockle women from Penclawdd and other north Gower villages, swathed in layers of shawls, leading their ponies and carts on to the estuary at low tide, taking out their wooden rakes and gathering the finest cockles in the world for sale in local markets, perhaps for consumption with local laverbread and bacon for breakfast.
That mental picture, although from a bygone age, is not so very different from what one would have seen if one had gone out to watch the cockle gatherers in the Burry inlet before last July. Certainly, the pony and cart would have been replaced with a Land Rover, some of the women would have been replaced with menfolk and almost all the shawls would have been replaced by more suitable outdoor gear, but the actual gathering of the cockles would have been exactly the same—using a wooden rake and a great deal of back-breaking work.
The shellfishery has a record of environmental and economic sustainability that is probably unparalleled anywhere else around the coast. In recent years, that sustainability has been maintained by regulation through the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee, so that only a limited number of licensed gatherers can collect cockles in the Burry inlet and the amount that each of them can take is limited, as is the size of the cockles taken. That system ensured that cockles could be gathered in the Burry inlet throughout the year, except when short-term prohibition orders applied as a result of pollution spills or other health hazards. That is largely because it has not, like other shellfisheries, started to use heavy equipment from boats or large tractor rakes, but has stuck with the hard work of the hand rake.
Until last July, the operation had provided a good living for more than 40 families in north Gower. It had led to the development of a sizeable co-operative cockle and laverbread factory and other family processing units in the Penclawdd area, provided a central focus for Swansea's excellent market and given birth to our regular cockle festival in the city. The Burry inlet cockle beds do not provide a living only to some of my constituents. There are also cockle gatherers on the other side of the estuary, in Llanelli and Carmarthenshire. I know that hon. Members from those constituencies share my support for the industry and my concern for its future.
Sadly, what many of us thought of as this most environmentally friendly and sustainable of industries, applauded by conservation groups throughout Wales and beyond, has been closed down for nearly eight months. Since last July, both sides of the Burry inlet have continued to return positive results for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning, which, as its name suggests, is a poisoning caused by the consumption of infected shellfish that

901
induces diarrhoea and various other nasty symptoms. To protect public health, the Food Standards Agency and the local authorities therefore imposed temporary prohibition orders to stop cockle gathering.
That has left the cockle gatherers' families in a desperate situation. They have lost their only or main source of income for two thirds of a year. Their savings have been eaten up and many have been forced to extend their overdrafts or to borrow from other sources. What is worse, they have no idea when they will be able pursue their livelihoods again. That depressing uncertainty has grown week after week. At first, everyone from gatherers to environmental scientists expected the problem to disappear, because in the past DSP has come and gone in a matter of weeks in shellfisheries around the coast. That led to a growing awareness that something was different and more virulent about this outbreak than previous outbreaks in the area and around the coast of Britain.
Then, about a month ago—seven months after the fishery was first closed—we learned that the DSP positive test results in the Burry inlet are not due to what the Food Standards Agency calls "classic" DSP toxins. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science at Weymouth has found that the toxicity of the affected cockles from the Burry inlet is more acute than normal. Even at this stage, we know little about what is causing these positive results. We know that heat treatment does not kill it, as it does some bugs responsible for other shellfish-induced illness. Work is going on at CEFAS and other institutions. Similar results have been shown in other locations such as the Wash and the Thames estuary. There is also evidence from Ireland and Canada of similar phenomena. As we are so far away from identifying the cause, we are even further away from identifying the factors that have allowed it to develop, be they pollutants or other environmental changes in the estuary.
The distress is greatest for the cockle gatherers, especially for those with no other source of income, but it is not confined to them. Others are suffering, albeit to a lesser extent—for example, those involved in processing who have to pay the extra costs of transporting cockles from other parts of the UK and abroad, and people who sell cockles, especially in the markets, who no longer have a local product and can see the concern about the safety of cockle consumption putting off their customers. Cockle gatherers in south-west Wales who do not work the licensed Burry inlet have had their shellfisheries around the coast, at places such as Laugharne and Ferryside, threatened with overfishing by the displaced gatherers and then closed down to protect stocks.
So what needs to be done and who should be doing it? First, a compensation scheme should be set up for cockle gatherers unable to gather their product in the inlet. There is a strong case for such a scheme. These families have seen farmers whose livelihoods were undermined by foot and mouth disease receiving Government compensation and help being provided to affected parts of the tourist industry. That is quite right. However, these people have not just had their livelihoods undermined—they have had the rug pulled from under them and have so far received no help. Indeed, for most of the eight months they have had to keep paying their licences although they cannot gather their cockles.
902
When I make that case contrasting the treatment of cockle gatherers with that of farmers, I am accused of comparing chalk with cheese. People argue that cockling, as a form of fishing, is hunter-gathering, and that if stocks run out in one place hunter-gatherers move on to another location. That is probably true around most of the coast. In places such as the Wash, the Thames estuary and the Scottish coast, cockle gatherers do exactly that. If they get a prohibition order they simply move their activities outside its boundaries. That is not an option for the cocklers at the Burry inlet shellfishery, who are tied to their estuary. They are not really hunter-gatherers, but husbander-gatherers, and hence much more similar to farmers and without, in the main, the option of looking to new cocklebeds.
So: who should provide the cocklers with support? The question of how to do that is complicated. When my colleagues and I ask the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we are told that this is entirely a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. When I ask the National Assembly, it explains that, while responsibility for the inshore fishery has been devolved, it has no powers to compensate cockle gatherers.
When I ask why the Assembly cannot use the wide power in section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which states that the Assembly
"may do anything…which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of any of its functions",
it is pointed out that the closure of the fishery is not an exercise of one of the Assembly's functions. It is the action of the local authorities on behalf of the Food Standards Agency. Therefore, the Assembly is, apparently, unable to pay any sort of compensation.
A Treasury scheme exists for compensation when a pest or disease has affected a fishery. Apparently, however, diarrhetic shellfish poisoning does not count as a pest because it results from the shellfish ingesting toxins present in the microscopic algae on which they feed. I do not know why the definition of "pest" has to be drawn so tightly as to rule this problem out. We either need to widen the definition or expand section 40 of the Government of Wales Act to allow the Assembly to provide support. Alternatively, we need to find a way of operating through food safety laws to provide compensation to these people, either through UK Government agencies or the National Assembly. Somehow, we should find a way to provide support to these families from the public purse. That is getting pretty urgent for some of the families involved.
It is even more urgent, now, that we get on with sorting the estuary out, identifying the problem and its causes and taking the necessary remedial action to ensure that the estuary environment can once again support a sustainable cockle industry. For the Loughor estuary to be rescued, I believe that we are going to need more geographically specific research that looks not only at the microbiology but at the wider ecosystem in the estuary.
As well as the problem caused by algae toxins, other problems have been identified in the inlet: eutrophication caused by excess nitrates; silting up and encroachment; and an increasingly anaerobic environment. All these have been seen in parts of the inlet and all—as well as the DSP problem—will affect the quantity and quality of collectable cockles.
We are fortunate that Swansea university has the expertise to carry out the sort of research that needs to be done. Dr. Kevin Flynn at the university is an expert in the

903
field of algae biotoxins and is prepared to get such a research project under way. However, that research needs to get going as quickly as possible. The phytoplankton that will be a central part of the investigation starts growing in spring. Research should begin as soon as possible if valuable information is not to be lost for another year. I congratulate both Carmarthenshire and Swansea on having put in money to begin that research, but I hope that the Food Standards Agency and the Environment Agency will see the sense in diverting some of their research budgets to this project.
Too often in the history of south Wales, people have been expected to trade off environmental quality in exchange for jobs. This is a case in which improving the environment and saving jobs—even creating new ones—go hand in hand. To do this in time will take political will at every level of government.
4.43 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his speedy race through the fascinating subject of cockles in Gower. I look forward with some enthusiasm to further discussions on that in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I also join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his maiden speech. Perhaps unlike other Members who have to delve a long way back into their memory to remember what that experience is like, as a new boy I did it only about eight months ago. It involved a peculiar mix of terror and excitement which slowly eased away, leaving me with the realisation that I had to sit here for another half an hour or so to be polite. I therefore understand the hon. Gentleman's situation. I also congratulate him on getting Kylie Minogue and J. J. Williams into the same sentence; that is quite a remarkable achievement in a maiden speech. So—congratulations all round.
I want to focus on an issue about which I feel strongly, namely the condition of and prospects for the Welsh economy. Doing business in Wales has much to commend it. It is often said that the sign of a good economy is a high number of overseas investors prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Inward investment is a good example of how an economy is doing. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Welsh Development Agency was tremendously successful. We saw about £13 billion worth of inward investment during that period, and some 200,000 jobs were either secured or created.
One of the most interesting aspects of the structural reform of the Welsh economy in that period was illustrated by the fact that four of the world's six largest and most successful electronics manufacturers were based in Wales. That was a real vote of confidence in the Welsh economy in that period.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the workers in Wales, and to their often excellent record of loyalty and commitment. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the many small business men and women who form the heart of any economy and, particularly, form the heart of the Welsh economy. It is often true to say that politicians do not take the opportunity often enough to say thank you. I would like to say thank you to the thousands—indeed, millions—of small business men and women across the United Kingdom, and particularly those
904
in Wales. They are the ones who create the wealth; they create jobs for other people, and have the confidence to provide us with the services on which we rely. I am sure that all hon. Members share my gratitude for the hard work and dedication of small business men and women across Wales.
It is with regret, therefore, that I have to say that the confidence of those business men and women in Wales is at an all-time low. It is certainly much lower than the confidence of many businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are all aware that manufacturing has been in recession for a whole year. We have seen 9,000 manufacturing jobs lost in Wales in that time. The trade deficit for the United Kingdom as a whole is also at a record level.
The Trades Union Congress said today that it did not foresee the recovery that has been heralded by some Ministers taking place this year in Wales. It does not foresee the recovery taking place in manufacturing until 2003. That means that we face two consecutive years of recession. The recession in manufacturing will have a devastating effect on the businesses involved and on the communities that support them.
I hope that the TUC is wrong in this instance, and that things will recover more quickly. However, its view is also shared by many entrepreneurs in Wales. I refer to a recent report published by Barclays on business start-ups. These start-ups are an important indicator, because they show the confidence that people have in the future of an economy, locally or nationally. The figures for the last year show a noticeable fall in the number of business start-ups planned in Wales. That is not unusual in a recessionary period.
The fall, however, is much greater in Wales than it is in the neighbouring English regions. In the west midlands, the fall in business start-ups in the last year is 6 per cent., but in Wales—right next door—the figure is not 6 per cent. or 12 per cent. but 19 per cent. That represents a fall of nearly one fifth in the number of business start-ups in Wales in the last year. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will understand this point particularly. In a region such as the west midlands, including the delightful county of Shropshire, the fall of 6 per cent. was not good, but it was certainly not devastating. Just across the border in Powys, however, there has been a fall of 19 per cent. That is worrying because it bodes ill for the Welsh economy and suggests the danger of a greater gap between the Welsh and English economies, which would be in no one's interest.
What is the problem, and what is the difference in Wales? I have talked to business men and women and their representatives, including the Cardiff chamber of commerce and the Welsh Federation of Small Businesses. They have identified a number of factors, and I shall raise two of them.
The first relates to the burden of regulation and the administrative costs of the regulations that fall on small businesses in Wales. Last year, the extraordinary number of 4,672 new regulations were introduced, which is a record since regulations have been counted. That is not my figure: it comes from the House of Commons. That comes on top of the £15 billion costs of red tape that the British Chambers of Commerce has identified from Labour's first four years in government. Unfortunately, there is little sign that the pace or scope of regulation is likely to diminish.

905
A number of small business men and women have told me that they hope there will be change and a realisation by the Government that the burden on small businesses is disproportionate. I spoke to them today, and as regards the figure of 4,672 new regulations they have said to themselves, "We can kiss that money goodbye. The chances of those figures falling is very small."
The reality is that the average small business in Wales spends up to 31 hours each month complying with or administering Government regulations. That is the equivalent of four working days a month—another working day a week—merely to ensure that the business is complying with and administering the regulations. Is it any wonder that the productivity of businesses in Wales, or in the United Kingdom as a whole, is collapsing? The sad fact is that four years ago we were the ninth most competitive nation in the world, but we are now the 19th, and the danger is that Wales and the UK as a whole will fall further.
The second factor that businesses have mentioned to me and that has been highlighted in a number of surveys is the lack of confidence that Welsh businesses have in local and national authorities. Individual business owners have expressed to me their frustration in dealings with local councils and agencies from the Assembly or from Whitehall—indeed, in having to deal with all three when the different levels do not communicate effectively with one another. That has been borne out most recently by a comprehensive survey entitled "Barriers to Growth and Survival", published by the Welsh Federation of Small Businesses.
I shall pick up on a couple of brief points made in that survey which merit consideration. Across the United Kingdom, 33 per cent. of small firms said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with Government-funded business advice, but in Wales the figure was 51 per cent.—over half. People singled out the quality of business advisers, the co-ordination of services, grant funding, loan funding and training grants. If local authorities think that they escape criticism, I have bad news for them. Local support for small businesses also attracted criticism, with almost three quarters of firms in Wales saying that they were dissatisfied with their local authority as a whole. Moreover, 60 per cent. of them were fed up with local economic development departments—I hope that the new Assembly Minister dealing with that aspect will take note of that if he has time—and 40 per cent. were unhappy with the way in which local planning applications are carried out. That is a sad indictment of how the public sector is perceived by one of the crucial communities that it exists to serve. It clearly shows a breakdown in the confidence of those businesses in many of their public authorities, and a breakdown of communications and trust.
People may wonder why things have got to this stage. I shall give a simple example. As a chartered surveyor, I am relatively familiar with this issue, although not an in-depth expert, so I look forward to being corrected by Labour Members. As I understand the current situation—Labour Members will be happy to remind me of this—businesses in my English constituency will be able to veto any proposal from a local authority to create a supplementary or additional business rate, whereas businesses in the Welsh constituencies of Labour and
906
other Members will not have that veto and their voice will not count in the same way. That is wrong, because it discriminates against Welsh businesses, and it makes many of them second-class citizens.
Some people may say—sadly, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) is not present to say it, but I am sure he would if he were here—that with devolution there will be differences of opinion and different approaches. That may well be, but from the perspective of the small business man or woman, it puts them and their business at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis their English neighbours. That is probably the worst possible signal about the nature of the devolution settlement that we could give the engine of the Welsh economy, and it is one of the saddest aspects of how devolution has been allowed to spin out.
In my lifetime, the Welsh economy has undergone a radical transformation. That is in no small measure due to the hard work and the willingness to change of the people of Wales. Small business owners and managers want and need better business support. They want less regulation, and resent the complex political and bureaucratic hurdles that they have to tackle. Understandably, they resent the fact that they are now required every month to spend the equivalent of four working days simply complying with Government red tape.
I believe that small businesses in Wales deserve better, not just because they create local wealth and local jobs, important though they are, but because entrepreneurs embody the essential ingredient of a decent society. No matter who a person is—whatever his background, class, colour or creed—if he has the ability, skills and will to work, he can be his own boss and make his own way in the world. That is a vital message of hope for all, in whatever part of Wales. That is why small businesses matter in Wales, and why I believe that they deserve our full support.
4.57 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, not least because St. David's day is my birthday, which is good for a Labour politician in Wales, but also because about five weeks ago I thought for a split second that I would not be able to speak ever again, when someone in another car in Cardiff decided to share my side of the road for a few seconds, and lost. I want to say publicly how well the emergency services of Cardiff and south Wales dealt with the accident, especially the accident and emergency department. Despite the doom and gloom that we hear from Conservative Members, A and E did a magnificent job for me and for the poor occupants of the other vehicle. The doom and gloom that we keep hearing about is not relevant. The police, the fire brigade, the ambulance service and the A and E people did a magnificent job for everyone involved.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who made a magnificent speech. The constituency problems he described are similar to those I experience: both constituencies are landlocked, and in both cases the ending of a mining tradition has left a legacy of poverty and deprivation. I think we are all here to try to put that right, and I wish my hon. Friend luck.

907
I want to raise two issues of specific interest to north-east Wales, and relating directly to Wrexham. I represent roughly half that area, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who is present, may wish to speak later and to raise the same issues.
My first point relates to city status for Wrexham. As Members will know, throughout Wales Wrexham is considered to be the premier industrial, commercial shopping and administrative centre of north Wales. The area's achievements over the past decade are worthy of the recognition and honour that city status would confer on every resident, business, organisation and group that has helped it to create its new positive future.
Besides being the largest town in north Wales, Wrexham is now truly the regional centre of the north. South Wales has two urban civic cities, Cardiff and Swansea, but there is no northern equivalent. City status for Wrexham would help to correct a long-overdue imbalance in Wales.
Economically, Wrexham's fortunes have undergone a transformation in recent years, by any measure. City status would constitute an acknowledgement of a sustained period of achievement in the town's regeneration. That achievement is due to the drive and purpose of its people, and to partnerships developed with private and public bodies. For example, on average one new company is established each week in the Wrexham area. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) should note that: although we heard some doom and gloom from him, there are good stories to tell, especially in areas such as Wrexham.
Chris Ruane: I am glad that my hon. Friend is seeking to correct the imbalance created by the Conservatives. Last year in my county of Denbighshire, 44 new companies were started in Ruthin and 24 in Rhyl, with the help of the council and other agencies. That is a marvellous example of the expansion of the small and medium-sized enterprise base in Wales.
Mr. Jones: I am pleased to hear such news of another centre in north Wales. It may not be quite as big and prosperous as Wrexham, but I know that with the help of its Member of Parliament it will improve in the near future.
Development opportunities in Wrexham's town centre are eagerly sought, which reflects the confidence and vitality of the town and the surrounding area. The Henley centre for forecasting described Wrexham as one of the top 20 areas in Britain with above-average potential for economic activity during the 1990s. It has more than fulfilled its expectations, and continues to move from strength to strength.
So far the campaign for city status has proved a great success, and we are delighted with the Wales-wide support that we have received for our bid. To date, 56 per cent. of Members in Wales—excluding those on the Government payroll—have supported the granting of city status in this jubilee year. To that can be added the support of all five Members of the European Parliament representing Wales, 75 per cent. of Welsh local authorities and 61 per cent. of Members of the National Assembly. Given the expressions of support from thousands of people in all walks of life—those working in television, sport, business and tourism, health professionals and
908
religious leaders—we begin to see a huge momentum gathering in favour of a just reward for Wrexham and, indeed, north Wales.
City status would enable Wrexham to be seen as a location for quality and opportunity, not just locally and regionally but internationally. It would allow the town to compete in the global economy, and it would help the area to attract more new investment and to build on its strengthening economic base by bringing in high-quality jobs. The area would be enriched, to the general benefit of the people. I urge the Secretary of State, as he considers which Welsh town to recommend for city status in the coming weeks, to reflect not just on what such status would deliver for the people of Wrexham but, more important, on what it would deliver for Wales as a whole. It is time to redress the imbalance between north Wales and south Wales.
The second issue I want to raise concerning Wrexham is not unrelated. It involves the future of the North East Wales institute of higher education, and its ambition to achieve university status. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met its principal, Professor Mike Scott, to discuss the prospects of that.
I endorse NEWI's ambition. Let me say at the outset that there remains an important role for the more traditional so-called supply-led universities, such as Cardiff and Bangor, in higher education in the wider national Welsh context. I believe, however, that there is also a real need for a new type of university in north Wales to meet the needs of local people, and I sincerely believe that NEWI can serve that purpose. It has the potential to work in partnership and alliance not just with the supply-led colleges in the university of Wales, but with its partners in the further education sector and in business, commerce, the arts and sport.
NEWI has a progressive and innovative vision that can be realised in its development as an independent entity with university status. Wrexham and north-east Wales need a new, high-quality university, and NEWI can fill that role with ease. I urge my right hon. Friend to think again about its ambition at the earliest opportunity.
Let me now deal with a matter that has concerned me for some time. It has come back into focus only recently, as a result of a campaign with which I have been involved in my constituency. My concern relates to the serious matter of balance in news coverage and current affairs programmes broadcast on the Welsh-language channel SpedwarC, or S4C. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware of those concerns, as I have copied to him recent correspondence that I have sent to the chair of S4C, Elan Closs Stephens.
I have genuine worries about the existence of a policy among S4C news and current affairs producers and editors effectively to exclude non-Welsh speaking MPs and Assembly members from coverage on their various programmes. Hon. Members may know of the campaign that I have fought to save Britain's oldest brand of lager, Wrexham Lager. It has received considerable coverage in recent weeks on independent networks and on BBC regional television and radio. As a natural consequence, the story also attracted much interest from producers and editors making news and current affairs programmes for S4C.
However, although my office received several calls from S4C production teams, my staff were asked only to provide background information for the story and to

909
suggest only Welsh speakers for interview on camera about the story. I became concerned that there was a possibility that S4C was operating a policy of linguistic apartheid when reaching editorial decisions. I certainly hope that such decisions are not based on a politician's ability to speak fluent Welsh, but all the indications are that that, sadly, may be the case at S4C. What other hon. Friends have told me reinforces that view.
As a result of my fears, I recently made some very interesting inquiries of TG4, the Irish-language national television channel of the Republic of Ireland. TG4 mirrors the function and the role of S4C in the Republic by providing a daily Irish-language programme schedule.
I was amazed to discover that non-Irish speaking politicians are not excluded from any news programmes on the basis that they cannot speak Irish. Indeed, in such circumstances, TG4 simply subtitles any interview or contribution. The only criterion for the broadcast of a news item is newsworthiness.
As an interesting aside, thanks to the endeavours of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his previous job as Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, TG4 is now broadcast in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend's crucial and important part in securing peace through the Good Friday agreement now means that TG4 is broadcast for Irish speakers across the border in Northern Ireland. I am sure, therefore, that he is all too familiar with what I am describing.
Sadly, in Wales newsworthiness and balance do not seem to be taken into account by S4C producers and editors when they make editorial decisions. Language seems to be the overriding and determining factor in deciding the news agenda. That cannot be a healthy way to present news and factual programming, as it limits and restricts opinion. In any case, it does not reflect the Welsh nation as a whole.
S4C claims that it does as much as possible to help learners of the Welsh language. I know from my own experience of trying to learn Welsh and Spanish that the best way for television to help language learners is through the use of subtitles. In this case, subtitles should be both Welsh-English and English-Welsh.
It is sad that on this day—the eve of St. David's Day, and of my birthday—S4C is leaving itself wide open to accusations of imbalance in news reporting. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity with the chair of the channel, and to establish once and for all that S4C serves the entire Welsh nation, irrespective of linguistic competency. I have supported S4C in the past as a valuable asset in Welsh life. A change in news and current affairs policy such as I have described would reinforce my support.
In conclusion, I should briefly like to deal with the work in this House of the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I have the privilege to be the Chairman. We recently examined the shameful decision of the Children's Society to withdraw from Wales, a decision that angered many people in Wales. The Committee was not impressed by the society's reasons for pulling out of Wales, and the subsequent report emphasised that the society's action must not be seen as a green light for other charities to follow suit.
910
The House should know that our inquiry exposed some major flaws in the decision-making process adopted by the Children's Society. The Committee concluded that the adoption of the recent recommended code of practice by the voluntary sector in Wales could prevent such mistakes in the future.
Currently, the Committee is looking at the important issue of objective 1 funding for Wales, which was mentioned earlier. We are also receiving evidence on broadband internet provision. The Committee will be happy to hear evidence from anyone on those issues, and on the question of the operation of the legislative process in Wales, and its potential, following devolution.
I assure the House that relations and co-operation between the Welsh Affairs Committee and the National Assembly are very constructive indeed. That is a testament to the success and the drive of the devolutionary policies of this Government. This House can be satisfied that self-government for Wales and the relationship between Westminster and Cardiff go from strength to strength. The message is clear—devolution is working for Wales.
5.9 pm
Mr. Roger Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, which falls as close as possible to St. David's day.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on achieving another birthday and surviving the terrible car accident in which he was involved, thus sparing us the unedifying spectacle of the competition to see who would succeed him as Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his maiden speech, which was very good. I did not have the opportunity to get to know his predecessor, Sir Ray Powell, very well, because of the short time that I have been in the House, but I got to know the hon. Gentleman in the general election, in which he fought a vigorous campaign—fortunately, though, not vigorous enough to get the result that he wanted.
I will aspire to reach the high standard set for politicians by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). No doubt what I say will be reported back to him and judged accordingly.
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) for publicising the Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflets and the great effect that they have throughout the nation because of their positive content.
In this debate, we have talked about the economy, manufacturing, the service sector, tourism, agriculture and even shellfish gatherers, so we have had a fairly comprehensive tour. We have also considered how we are functioning as a society and how we are dealing with health, education and transport. The one aspect that we have missed out—although it was touched on by the hon. Member for Ogmore in his description of his constituency—is the environment.
The environment is one of our greatest assets and we must protect it at all costs. Much is written and spoken about sustainability, yet it is a little-understood concept and certainly not one that has captured the imagination of the general public. It is not used by planning authorities, for instance, to rank development proposals in order of

911
acceptability, and developments are taking place in Wales under the cloak of sustainability, environmental targets and international obligations that are profoundly and demonstrably unsustainable.
Unfortunately, Wales has had a history of being robbed and raped of its assets and of having its environment degraded and impoverished. One of the first examples was the desecration and deforestation of the hills of south and mid-Wales to produce charcoal to feed the furnaces of the early iron foundries. Those hills have never recovered their diversity—biologically, they will never recover. However, the process led to the wide, open and challenging landscapes that are so valued by the people who live there and by the visitors who bring money into the local economy.
The second great exploitation in south Wales took place in the name of coal, to fuel the iron and steel industries and to be exported as well as being used domestically. The coal rush brought very modest returns for the people who live in the area, and great social deprivation. The huge returns went to the coal owners. Because there were no environmental controls, the mining utterly destroyed some of the south Wales valleys, which were a landscape every bit as beautiful as mid-Wales, and probably more diverse in its wildlife.
The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned the reclamation work being done by the Welsh Development Agency. I commend that. It has made a great impression and there has been a real greening of the south Wales valleys, but the hand of man does not compare with that of nature: man-made landscapes and environments lack the fascination of the real thing, which is what attracts and will continue to attract visitors. There are lessons to be learned: let us not destroy the very jewel of the Welsh crown that sits so well with the other jewels of culture, language and community.
Recently, the uplands of Wales have become the target of developers who use the words "renewable" and "sustainable" to cloak and cover a unique landscape with industrial structures, such as wind farms. Friends visiting me say, "Don't ever take that landscape for granted. Fight for its survival." A sense of wilderness is very hard to find today in urbanised Britain, but finding it is enormously spiritually uplifting for those whose lives have become humdrum and stressful. Such experiences are more than recreational; they are re-creational and truly renewing. They re-create people's spirit.
We should not be misled: when landscapes are lost to industrialisation, they are lost for many generations and probably for ever. Reclamation has always taken a very long time. In an important debate in the other place, noble Lords, including the Lord Bishop of Hereford, drew attention to the Cefn Croes wind farm development and the Department of Trade and Industry's decision to allow it to proceed without public inquiry. I shall not dwell on that too much, except to say—
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I apologise for missing the earlier part of the debate, but I have just returned from Germany, where I was looking at renewable development. Given that the hon. Gentleman disapproves of wind farms, I hope he will explain his party's position on nuclear power. If we do not adopt one or the other, we may as well throw away any commitment to Kyoto.
Mr. Williams: I do not agree that the choice is between wind power or nuclear energy. The Liberal Democrat
912
party and I favour offshore wind farms, rather than the establishment of wind farms in Wales's wild and special places.
As I said, the debate in the other place made mention of the Cefn Croes wind farm development, about which there is huge disquiet in the whole of Wales. Ceredigion's local planning authority approved the application in a meeting lasting less than half an hour, even though the officer's report, which ran to more than 100 pages, recommended refusing the application. That recommendation was based on, among other factors, the view of the Countryside Council for Wales that wind farms are inappropriate in that location. Here we enter a circle of confusion. The CCW thought that it was not empowered to request an inquiry, and the Assembly thought it could not request one if its adviser, the CCW, had not done so.
The application then went straight from Ceredigion county council to the desk of a Minister in the DTI, without touching any other organisation in Wales. That Minister then took his decision without visiting the site; he merely consulted what we in Wales call snaps, or, in more technical language, photomontages. I wonder whether the Wales Office was involved in that process, and whether the Minister or the Secretary of State could give a personal view on it.
My main concern is the Camddwr trust's proposal to build 165 turbines, 400 ft high, on the Ceredigion-Powys border. One third of them would be built in my constituency above Abergwesyn, on land that is of national park quality but has never been designated as such. That application must not be fast-tracked in any way, but scrutinised in detail. In any event, a public inquiry must be held, involving an entirely independent inspector who is well versed in the impact of such developments on dramatic landscapes.
I am particularly concerned by a press statement by the Minister for Industry and Energy about future planning applications. On announcing the Cefn Croes application, he said:
"new rules which will relocate renewable energy projects…have been proposed under the non fossil fuel obligation but have failed to obtain planning permission".
We are not quite sure what that means, but it fills us with horror. Perhaps there is some fast-tracking system for so-called sustainable or non-fossil fuel obligation developments. Once again, Wales is being exploited by a large organisation that is making huge profits from non-fossil fuel obligation subsidies. We must put our environment before financial exploitation.
5.19 pm
Julie Morgan: I am grateful that I caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this important debate on issues connected with Wales. I am pleased to have been in my place when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made his maiden speech. He reiterated the principles that guide this party, so it was a tremendous pleasure to listen to him today.
I am also pleased to be here on the day that the Leader of the House announced a timetable that will, I am sure, eventually lead to the end of hunting with hounds. That is an important issue in Wales and I have had more letters on that than on any other issue since becoming an MP.

913
The letters have come from all sections of the population, but especially from young people. Recently, I have had letters from people who cannot understand why, when democratically elected Members of Parliament have indicated their clear will to ban hunting on several occasions, it has not yet happened. A ban to end hunting might help to restore the faith in democracy that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) mentioned. Such policies will help to convince the public that we do what we say we are going to do. I hope that we will not see a fudge on the issue of hunting. If this House votes in favour of a ban and the other place votes against, the Parliament Act should be used.
I shall address most of my remarks to the subject of crime and the Home Office's policies in Wales on prisons and on combating domestic violence. I strongly support the Home Secretary's aim, which he stated to prison governors recently, to reduce the number of people in prison and increase community sentencing, including perhaps weekend prisons and other ways in which prisoners can maintain their contacts in the community while serving their sentences.
I have long taken an interest in the position of women in prison. Because of the lack of a women's prison in Wales, Welsh women have had to serve their sentences in English prisons, which causes huge problems for their families and children. United Kingdom figures show that half of the children of Welsh women in prison are taken into care. An analysis of the 169 Welsh women in prison on 30 November 2001 showed that the majority were there for non-violent offences. Many of the Welsh women who are in prison today should not be there.
I fully support the proposals by the Prison Reform Trust for a network of local facilities to help to rehabilitate offenders. Women are treated differently from men by the criminal justice system. Those facilities should be made available, because women from Wales, and their families, would benefit from them.
The general population of prisoners in Wales, like that in the rest of the UK, has risen rapidly. An answer to a written question that I received yesterday reveals that the prison population in the Welsh prisons—Cardiff, Swansea, Parc and Usk, including Prescoed—rose from 1,437 to 2,191 between 1997 and 2002. That is an increase of nearly 50 per cent. In reasons for prison sentences, the biggest rise has been in drug offences. Some 124 men were held for drug offences in 1997 compared with 280 in 2002—another huge increase. The next biggest rise was for burglary—from 237 to 332. I do not have a deeper analysis of the drug offences, but it is difficult to obtain help for drug addiction in prison. We all know that, despite the best efforts of the prison officers drugs are still widely available in prisons.
With a rapidly escalating prison population we must find alternatives to prison. I support the tagging schemes that allow early release and that have been almost universally successful. I look forward to more community sentencing. Those who are a danger to the public must be kept in prison, but many of those who are not a risk could serve their sentences more effectively in the community. It is also important to ask how successful prison is and how good it is at preventing reoffending. We all know
914
that its record is poor. Reconviction rates are very high after a prison sentence, and I believe that the entire subject must be reviewed.
Another move by the Home Secretary that I strongly welcome is the ending of the policy of holding asylum seekers in jail. Very many asylum seekers have passed through Cardiff prison and I applaud the Home Secretary's decision, which means that there are now no asylum seekers there.
I previously visited asylum seekers in Cardiff prison, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), and followed up the visit with a debate in Westminster Hall. Asylum seekers were unsuitably housed, on a top landing in an old, unmodernised section of the prison. That is no criticism of prison officers, who were placed in a very difficult situation and had to deal with it as best they could. For people who have committed no crime it was an entirely wrong policy, which I am pleased that the Home Secretary has ended so soon after entering his post. I was also encouraged by the report in the press this week that many of the old Victorian-style prisons will be replaced by more modern ones, which could affect us in Wales.
I shall now discuss violent crime against women in the home. In Welsh questions yesterday I raised the issue of future funding for the women's safety unit in Cardiff. The unit is one of several projects in Wales that are funded by the Home Office for a 12-month period as part of its crime reduction programme, and I was very pleased to hear that a Wales Office Minister would be visiting it soon. The unit, which was very recently launched in Cardiff, is a one-stop shop dealing with criminal justice, housing, finance and the emotional fall-out from domestic violence and rape, particularly in the 70 per cent. of rape cases in which the perpetrator is known to the victim.
The women's safety unit aims to provide advocacy for victims and their children and to reduce the risk of future harm. In the first 11 weeks of its operation, it has dealt with 140 women and 209 children. It is important that we do not forget the effects of domestic violence on children. There are some powerful and evocative images on posters, showing children cowering on the stairs or hiding behind doors when domestic violence is occurring in the home. We have not spoken much about children in today's debate, but obviously they should be at the heart of all our policies. Research has shown a strong link between domestic violence and child abuse, and children are absolutely key in all policies to do with domestic violence.
The women's safety unit has been able to change the structures of the criminal justice system in Cardiff so that cases can be quickly and appropriately dealt with. In Cardiff there is a named prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service. There is a domestic violence pre-trial review court staffed by a clerk who, along with all the Cardiff magistrates, has received training from the women's safety unit in how to deal with domestic abuse. It is absolutely essential that people who are dealing with that type of case receive the training to enable them to understand the implications. The time that it has taken for such cases to be heard has been halved in Cardiff, which means that there is less time for the victim to withdraw because of fear or intimidation.
The major problems to be tackled by the unit are the under-reporting of violence in the home and the fact that very many of those women who do report violence drop

915
out before the case reaches court. In Cardiff in one week last October there were 52 call-outs to incidents of domestic violence. Those resulted in six arrests, and four people being charged. Thus, following 52 incidents, only four people were charged.
I applaud the Government for putting domestic violence high on their agenda. Projects such as those that we have in Cardiff pave the way for a complete change in attitude and approach to this very damaging situation. The Government have made a tremendous start on the projects that they have set up. There are several throughout Wales, but the funding for those projects is only for 12 months. I want to reiterate very strongly that it is impossible to tackle an issue of such major importance with 12-month funding. I ask the Minister again to use all the power he has to persuade the Home Secretary to increase the funding for these projects.
5.29 pm
Adam Price: I am glad that the hon. and new Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is back in his place. As a fellow socialist parliamentarian and a fellow west Walian, may I add my words of warm congratulation on an excellent maiden speech? The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) is not here, but he will know that the best intellectuals in the Labour movement have always come from west Wales. I am glad to see that that civilising missionary spirit is carried forth, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will endeavour to raise the consciousness of the Ogmore constituency Labour party for many years to come.
This is my maidenesque appearance in a Welsh day debate, which is an interesting if rather peculiar institution in some ways—a bit like this entire Parliament. The first Welsh affairs debate took place in 1944, and such debates became an annual event two years later, under a Labour Government. That was something of a sop at the time, although I do not wish to be in any way ungrateful for the opportunity that the debate gives us to discuss Wales affairs. Obviously, we are very grateful for every opportunity to raise issues of importance to Wales. The idea of having a Welsh day is slightly redolent of tokenism. Of course, every day needs to be a Welsh day, and we look forward to a time when we have a Welsh Parliament—obviously with family-friendly hours—when every day will indeed be a Welsh day.
One of Parliament's interesting conventions is that we are not allowed to see outside the Chamber, but it is fair to say that perhaps the media interest at United Kingdom level in this Welsh affairs debate may be rather less than we might have hoped.
Mr. Llwyd: It is limited.
Adam Price: Possibly, yes. In a sense, Welsh politics and affairs have been pushed to the periphery of interest by successive Governments. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would try to resist that kind of metropolitan centralism. [Interruption.] I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) if he has something of relevance or interest to say. I am only 60 seconds into my speech, and I shall try to get on to the matters of interest.
Of course, it is true to say that, during the past month, a Welsh story, broken by the Welsh media and by my party, has come to dominate the headlines throughout the
916
United Kingdom. I certainly cannot remember the last time that a story made in Wales has come to dominate the news agenda in that way.
Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the story dominated the headlines in Ogmore?
Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman is incisive as ever.
The story was originally published by the Western Mail four weeks ago today, and it has rightly been at the forefront of political debate in Wales. On that day, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was involved in an interesting spat on the BBC. It was as poetic as ever, and I remember the phrase "maggots on the corpse". I am not sure what the corpse was—perhaps it was that of the Welsh Labour party, but I thought that that had a little bit of life left in it. I remember the prophetic words, "Adam, if you have any evidence of impropriety, then publish it." Four days later, we found the famous letter on the Romanian website, and I am sure that that will go down in history.
Clearly, there are two stories at the heart of that affair. The first is the set of circumstances surrounding the Government's support for the Sidex deal, and I shall concentrate on that. As the Secretary of State for Wales said, there will be an opportunity for further discussion, especially on the second issue—the cover-up. I do not want to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have counted nine fundamentally untrue statements or misleading statements that have been made by the Prime Minister and his official spokesperson as a result of those allegations. Clearly, my party is focused on the significance of that for the Welsh steel industry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must choose his words carefully. I am not quite sure what he said a moment ago, but he should not accuse any Member of deliberately misleading the House. If he did, he should withdraw that remark.
Adam Price: I withdraw it if you advise me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister's official spokesperson has made a slightly evasive and confused series of statements, but I shall not detain the House further. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity to discuss the matter on Tuesday night. The Secretary of State for Wales should not have to answer on the matter—he is an honest man whose commitment to support the steel industry is of long standing, and he was not consulted on the Sidex deal. In fact, as we know from the Minister for Europe, the only Minister who saw the letter was the Prime Minister. Surely, therefore, the Prime Minister should respond on behalf of the Government on Tuesday night. We look forward to that—at least, we live in hope. The message is, "Don't lose your idealism."
The Sidex deal was never in the national interest of Wales, the UK, or, indeed, the British—I have no problem with the word "British", as the Welsh and Cornish are the original Britons, are they not? The deal was never in the interests of the Welsh steel industry—Graham McKenzie commented to Scotland on Sunday that not only the plant in Romania but the plant in Kazakhstan owned by Mr. Mittal produce flat-rolled steel, which, of course, was produced in Llanwern and Ravenscraig. Therefore, Mittal's plants are competitors. Eastern European steel

917
imports doubled in 1999–2000, and low-cost competition from eastern European steel producers is one of the core problems facing the UK steel industry. It was therefore never in our interests to support the deal.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) pointed out that a deal was going to happen anyway. In a sense, that is true, and many things are happening in the world that will be detrimental to the prospects for Welsh companies in a range of sectors. However, should our Government actively support such developments? Technically, one could argue that the Usinor deal would have been less damaging to our steel industry because, as we have heard, the company employs more people in the UK than Mittal. At least its profits are retained in the European Union, which has indirect benefits, and the main focus of Usinor's steel production—it is formerly state-owned—is in western Europe. It would not therefore be in Usinor's interests to flood western European markets with low-cost steel imports, which is what Mr. Mittal intends to do with his plants in Kazakhstan and Romania.
We should never have supported Mr. Mittal's acquisition of Sidex: quite apart from the Labour party's insensitivity in accepting a donation from a prominent competitor, jobs in the Welsh steel industry will be endangered. Subsequently, we learned about Mr. Mittal's lobbying efforts in the United States. We await President Bush's decision—which he must make by Wednesday under the section 201 inquiry—and we may know it by the time of the debate on Tuesday.
Why was it not possible to seek an undertaking from Mr. Mittal that he would desist from his lobbying efforts in the United States as part of the price of UK support in Romania? As I understand it, no such undertaking was given or sought. It is incumbent on the Government, because of their support for Mr. Mittal both in the letter that clinched the deal and the loan, to use the full power of the British state to introduce a package of measures to support our beleaguered steel industry if President Bush imposes tariffs.
Although the package of measures for steel communities is welcome, in terms of additional central Government money it is less than Mr. Mittal received from the British taxpayer to fund his acquisitions in Romania and Kazakhstan, for which he got £6 million and £14 million respectively. That is depressing.
Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is depressing.
Adam Price: It is depressing for all of us. I would support many aspects of the Labour tradition in Wales. I have always said that I feel like a prodigal son of the Labour party, which I am sure will disown me. I distinguish between the best traditions of the Labour movement in Wales and the way in which the leadership of new Labour have dealt with that issue. I know that privately many Labour Members have sympathy for that sentiment.
The affair has corroded public confidence in politics and we are left with a sobering insight into new Labour and its priorities. Does the Prime Minister care more about his billionaire friends, as the draft letter referred to Mr. Mittal, than the families in the steel communities that
918
have loyally supported the Labour party for more than 100 years? Coming from a mining constituency, I know enough of the failings of old Labour in Wales. I certainly would not whitewash the Labour party's past, but at least there was a moral compass. It did not have an unblemished record, but it was possible to shine up the failings of the Labour party locally against its principles. The problem is that no one is clear about new Labour's principles and it is condemned by its actions. Its inability to realise or to admit what it has done wrong—it committed a grievous injustice to steel communities in south Wales—defines the ideological vacuum at the heart of the new Labour project.
5.43 pm
Chris Ruane: I am pleased to contribute to this St. David's day debate, even though I have to turn my 13-page, 15-minute, well-researched, finely crafted and perfectly delivered speech into a five-minute ramble.
Mr. Ainger: Get on with it.
Chris Ruane: Indeed.
I will confine my comments to town centre renewal. All hon. Members will have empty shops in their constituencies. It is a national issue, but in particular it affects the poorer communities in Wales. First, however, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his fantastic victory in the recent by-election. Well done—llongyfarchiadau.
I intend to draw on my constituency experience and on recent research by the Joseph Rowntree trust, an excellent organisation that has produced a research paper called "Local Shops for Local People". It researched 14 centres around the United Kingdom, including one in Ferndale in Wales, that have reinvigorated, renewed and regenerated their town centres. Lessons can be drawn from that. I urge the Minister to ask his civil servants to study that document. There is a copy available in the Library, which I have used.
I pay tribute to the Labour Government for what they have delivered in our communities and town centres. First, objective 1 funding will allow our local economies to regenerate so that our people are employed, have money in their pockets and can spend it in our town centres.
Secondly, there have been changes in heritage lottery funding since Labour's victory in 1997. Members may recall that, prior to that, £12 million of heritage lottery funding was spent on the Churchill diaries, and £5 million was spent on improving playing fields at Eton. Labour changed the rules so that such money is now used in areas where there is architectural merit and poverty. As a result, Denbigh town centre in my constituency is to benefit from £6 million of heritage lottery funding and Rhyl town centre, which is in Rhyl west, the poorest ward in Wales, is to receive £6 million. So, we have made big inroads into improving our town centres.
The main threat to our town centres, as everyone will realise, has come from out-of-town shopping centres. They are built on cheaper land and because of that benefit from a range of economic factors to the detriment of town centres. The main thrust of my speech is not to turn the clock back 25 years—I shop in those centres on a weekly

919
basis, as I am sure do many hon. Members—but to create a level playing field to ensure that we have the means to regenerate town centres.
The Joseph Rowntree trust research said that we should be creating town centres and not shopping centres in our communities. There is a difference. The town centre should be part of the town and should include the voluntary and community sectors. I opened the Clwyd Coast credit union in my constituency two weeks ago. Because it is located in the centre of Rhyl, its 1,000 members go there weekly and spend money there. The benefit advice shops and citizens advice bureaux are also in Rhyl town centre, which increases the footfall. Not only that: together with the welfare rights unit, their advice brings an additional £4.5 million in benefits into Denbighshire each year. That money is spent in our communities. So it is vital that we create town centres and not shopping centres.
There are other ways in which local and national Government can help our town centres. They can locate employment services in town centres, as they have in Rhyl. Healthy living centres, doctors surgeries and libraries could all be located in town centres.
"Local Shops for Local People" also revealed that for success we need partnerships—not just the traditional partnership of shops and offices in a commercial centre. We are blessed in my community with such business associations in Denbigh, Prestatyn and Rhyl—the three principal towns in my constituency. We need wider partnership and to consider the best examples around the country. The Borough Market renovation, not three miles from this House, enlisted the support of the Churches, residents' associations, the voluntary sector, the community sector and local authorities. We should be aiming for such wide partnership.
Another key factor in reviving our town centres is a safe environment. The Labour Government need to be given credit for creating partnerships to tackle crime and disorder, which bring together the community, local authority and voluntary groups. A month ago in Rhyl, I jointly opened a project to ban the drinking of alcohol on our streets. It aims to convince street drinkers that the areas around the railway station and the piazza are not the places to do their drinking as it deters shoppers.
Labour should be given credit for the closed circuit television that we have introduced in towns and communities all over Wales and for other initiatives such as club safe in Rhyl, which aims to monitor antisocial behaviour in clubs—there are 10,000 clubbers every weekend—and pub watch. It is vital that we create safe communities in which people can shop.
We need to co-ordinate employment, training and education for the work force who will work in our shops. If we regenerate our communities, our local people must benefit. We should target the unemployed and economically inactive in our communities. We should do so carefully, taking a long-term approach to families suffering inter-generational unemployment who have lost confidence. We must reach out to those people, give them training and restore their confidence so that they can go back into the community to be employed in our shops.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look into a key factor in many of the 14 regeneration projects around the country, which is the use of simple kiosks. They are low cost and low rent, so for a minimal outlay people can use
920
them to set up their own business: if successful, they can go on to fill our shops; if they fail, no harm is done. Two national chains were first established in my home town of Rhyl—Iceland and Kwik Save. I believe that there are many more Albert Gubays out there in our communities—people who if they were given the opportunity could make great innovations in British retailing.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider three fiscal steps to help town centres, the first of which is to enable flexible rates to be set in depressed communities and town centres. That has been done for the post offices and shops in small rural communities, and I want it to be extended. Secondly, I want the Chancellor to consider re-rating out-of-town shopping centre car parks, and ring-fencing the money for use in revitalising the communities that such centres have done down over the years. Thirdly, last April, the Prime Minister made an announcement about business improvement districts, which would allow local communities to use part of their rates to improve their town centre. I believe that taken together those three fiscal policies would do a great deal to revive our town centres.
5.52 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and wish him many happy returns of the day. I congratulate the new hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on a first-class maiden speech.
Before speaking about violent crime in Wales, I wish to discuss the death of my daffodil. I put it on this morning and was complimented on it throughout the day, but during the speech, of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), my daffodil died. I suspect that it may have been the slightly sanctimonious nature of his speech that did for my daffodil.
Lembit Öpik: The whole point of my remarks was that everyone, including the Liberal Democrats, needs to be more humble and more positive. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to make that clear.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for that intervention, but I wonder what else about me will die next.
Statistics recently released by the Home Office have revealed an increase in violent crimes against the person across Wales. That type of crime now accounts for 17 per cent. of all recorded crime across the four police areas in Wales. My constituency borders Wales, so I know that the Welsh people are fed up of living with the threat of violent crime. They are being let down by a Government who must focus more energy and resources on reducing those figures. The good people of Wales cannot be allowed to live in constant fear of attack.
I am sorry to say that that fear is compounded by the continuing fall in the number of special constables in Wales. Since 1997, that eventful year, the number of serving specials has fallen from 1,140 to 811 in 2000—a fall of 41 per cent. More specials are needed in Wales for the fight against violent crime. While the Government claim that overall police numbers in Wales have gone up, they can no longer ignore the rapid decline of that important part of the force.
Recent Home Office-funded research made several recommendations on how to reduce the high wastage of special constables. Among the recommendations to

921
prevent many specials leaving the force in Wales are plans such as local monitoring of wastage and improvements to management structures. Those recommendations are laudable, but they smack of new Labour's increased bureaucracy. The people of Wales need real policies to keep quality men and women in the force. Such policies would improve the pay and conditions of specials in Wales and complement the essential recruitment drive in that area. I am pleased that the Government have expressed commitment on that issue, but that must be backed by practical results for the distressed people of Wales.
Another major problem is the availability of treatment, or lack of it, for victims of crime in Wales. It is not comfortable to be confronted with a situation in which millions of pounds are spent rehabilitating offenders, yet the victims of crime are ignored. Statistics published by the Home Office itself reveal that only 3 per cent. of victims see the person who has targeted them charged and put through the courts. A further 1 per cent. receive some kind of monetary compensation for violent crime.
Those pathetic statistics mean that the Government are overlooking the needs of 96 per cent. of Welsh people who become victims of crime. The same report highlights the fact that insensitive treatment by some official bodies ends up making things far worse. The Government spend tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on rehabilitation schemes for people convicted of crime. Victim Support points out that only a tiny fraction of that sum goes towards support and help for those unfortunate enough to be victims of crime.
Research by Victim Support confirms that most victims of crime, violent or otherwise, receive little or no help from the state other than services provided by volunteer groups. The chief executive of Victim Support, Dame Helen Reeves, said that that negligible level of support is unacceptable. She said:
"It is staggering to think that even though 14 million crimes are committed every year in England and Wales, most public services turn a blind eye to the specific needs of those affected."
About 23 per cent. of the population are affected. Dame Helen is referring to the lack of awareness in agencies such as the NHS and housing departments. Some great things are achieved with rehabilitation, but it is not just the criminal's future activities in society that deserve consideration. The lives of the victims of crime can be changed radically. Coming to terms with such upheaval can be difficult and traumatic, so it is as important from a sociological perspective to ensure that the victims can interact positively in future as it is to do so for the criminals themselves. Rehabilitation for the victim may include involvement with official bodies such as the NHS or housing departments, so it is essential that such organisations are equipped with the finances and the training to be helpful, rather than damaging, to the unfortunate victims of crime.
That principle is true anywhere, but it is particularly applicable in areas with unacceptably high levels of violent crime, such as Wales. Violent crime in Wales unfortunately permeates all aspects of life across the border. It is a sad fact that nearly every major hospital in
922
Wales has its own police officer to protect medical staff from the threat of violence. The Western Mail carried out a survey which revealed that NHS trusts in Wales are:
"so concerned about verbal and physical abuse by patients that they are either already funding the services of a police officer or have plans to employ one."
As the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff recorded 788 incidents of violent crime in a 10-month period, the new measure is hardly surprising. Statistics show that the employment of those police officers is proving to be effective. Indeed, Ysbyty Gwynedd, which had recorded 508 incidents of violent crime in a year, managed to reduce that figure by 35 per cent. following the employment of a police officer by the North West Wales NHS Trust. That sounds like an improvement, but surely such a move should never have been necessary. There is still an average of almost one violent incident per day at the hospital. When violent crime prevents doctors and nurses from doing their job, the situation is clearly out of hand. I recognise the good work that has been done to reduce crime in Wales, but the figures for violent crime are still distressing. Not enough attention is being paid to reducing these upsetting incidents.
In 1997, the number of crimes of violence against the person in Wales was 17,386. After almost five years of Labour government, that figure stands at 38,230, which represents an increase of 120 per cent. The total figure for violent crime in Wales in 1997 was 20,071. That figure has increased by more than 100 per cent. to 40,880 in the past five years. Why is Labour neglecting to rectify such an unacceptable element of Welsh society?
I know that the Government will point to an increase in police numbers in some areas of Wales. Some types of crime, I am happy to report, are being reduced, but violent crime—from preventing the incidents, right through to conviction and victim support—is not receiving the attention in Wales that it needs. Will the Government pledge today to start to right that wrong? Will they give some assurance of practical solutions to the present frightening situation, which is a reality for too many people in Wales?
6.1 pm
Albert Owen(Ynys Môn): I am proud to speak in this Welsh affairs debate, on the eve of St. David's day. I hope in future to take part in the debate on the eve of a St. David's day public holiday. I was one of the Members who signed early-day motion 662, and I shall give my staff the day off tomorrow so that they can spend St. David's day with their families. We should start to recognise St. David's day.
I shall concentrate on the Welsh economy and the need for even economic development throughout Wales. I shall also discuss the practical arrangements between the National Assembly for Wales and Parliament. As a newly elected Member and one of the first batch of post-devolution Members from Wales, I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that that settlement works for the people of Wales.
The Welsh economy has made good progress since 1997. It enjoys the fruits of the Chancellor's labour, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. We have the lowest interest rates, low inflation, low mortgage rates and low unemployment. The Government's desire for a

923
stable economy is shared by the Welsh business community that I meet weekly, against a background of boom and bust under the Conservatives.
Mr. Prisk: Boom and bust?
Albert Owen: More bust than boom, it must be said.
The Labour Government's policies, such as the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, along with the new deal, have helped the unemployed and the low-paid in my constituency. Youth unemployment has been cut drastically. That means that school leavers no longer move from the classroom to the dole queue, but receive real training and hope for the future.
In my constituency, some 2,000 people had an immediate rise in earnings when we introduced the minimum wage. Almost 50 per cent. experienced a doubling of their hourly rate to £3.60. Let us not forget that the Conservative Government opposed those measures, and Plaid Cymru sat on the fence and made no decision about them.
Prior to my election to the House, I ran an advice and training centre. I saw the impact of the minimum wage and working families tax credit on unwaged people and those on low wages. However, in an area of high long-term unemployment such as mine, those benefits do not have the same impact as in the rest of Wales. Yes, unemployment is down. On the claimant count in my constituency, it stands at 7.7 per cent., which is down 0.5 per cent. on the previous year. On the residents base count, which is available in the House of Commons Library, male unemployment stands at 8.7 per cent., which represents a decrease. I welcome any drop in unemployment, but at 7.7 per cent., it is too high. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s in my constituency unemployment remained twice the average in Wales. One statistic that is a legacy of the representation of my constituency by the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru in the past two decades is the evidence of depopulation in two successive censuses. Mine is the only county in Wales that has seen such a drop in its population. Most stark is the depopulation among young people: 18 to 36-year-olds are leaving in droves to find jobs and opportunities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. With them goes the Welsh language and the Welsh community spirit that they hold, and the communities that people like me want to support. It is economic decline that leads to loss of the language in constituencies such as mine. It is not incomers who are responsible, as some have suggested, but lack of economic opportunity.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Will he be specific on this point: when in the two decades to which he referred did he see decline in Anglesey? Exactly when during that time was Plaid Cymru in government here or in Cardiff, or even in control of the local authority in Anglesey?
Albert Owen: The answer is firmly to say that when Plaid Cymru was elected to represent us in 1987, the individual concerned promised a big difference from the situation with his Tory predecessor. There was no such difference, but only a continuation. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
924
Let me turn to skills training. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke in answer to a question that I asked in Welsh questions yesterday about the vocational qualifications that are coming in at GCSE level. It is important that people in my area have the opportunity at a young age to get vocational training so that they can enter the jobs market.
I want deliberately to be critical of the Welsh Development Agency. We have heard from previous speakers about the boom areas in north Wales, but unfortunately, such areas do not come as far west as Ynys Mon. If we are to achieve an inclusive Welsh society, we need even economic development and it must come across the Menai bridge to Anglesey to provide job opportunities.
I am conscious of the time and I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute, so I shall move straight to my conclusions. In 1997, people in Wales looked forward to a new, inclusive Wales. We were promised a bonfire of quangos and a more inclusive society. I am a pro-devolutionist and I will fight for devolution and to ensure that the devolution settlement works. However, if we are serious about devolution, we have to devolve economic opportunities throughout Wales.
I said that I was proud to speak in this debate. I am proud to do so as a Labour Member. I quote my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's predecessor, the first Secretary of State for Wales, who once said:
"I am not merely a Labour man. I am more than a member of the Labour party—I am also a Welshman. As a Welshman, I want to see Wales, all of Wales, to have a share in the economic development of the United Kingdom, and not allow it to slip back into an economic and industrial backwater, as it did under the Tories. I want to see a confident, forward-looking strong Wales in a strong United Kingdom."
I believe that this Government, in partnership with the National Assembly for Wales, can deliver that.
6.8 pm
Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—or for Ogwr—who is sadly not in his place. I should say that I have had some problems with the pronunciation of my name since I have been in the House, so it is a great relief to see someone else with an exotic name taking his place in the Chamber. I use the word "exotic" because he is a Davies and I am a Williams.
Perhaps it is stating the obvious to say that it is very appropriate for us to debate the Welsh language on dydd Gwyl Dewi, St. David's day. It is especially so because this year marks the 40th anniversary of Saunders Lewis's seminal radio lecture, "Tynged yr Iaith"—"The Fate of the Language". It led directly to the establishment of Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg—the Welsh Language Society, which has proved such a dynamic force in Wales in the past 40 years. It is loved by some people, loathed by many but rarely ignored.
The issue of the languages of Wales is wide, perhaps as wide-ranging as life, given that language permeates all aspects of human activity. It is not surprising that the Welsh language is close to the hearts of those of us who speak it, those who have learned it and others who do not speak it but support it. We are bound to have mixed feelings as we survey the state of the language today. We eagerly await the results of the census that was held last year. They will give some idea of the language's health.

925
We have some information, thanks to Professors Carter and Aitcheson at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth and the Mercator project there. For example, we know that approximately 500,000 people speak Welsh and that the age distribution of speakers is changing. In the past, the language was predominantly spoken by older people. That proportion is declining, but that of young people who speak Welsh is growing quickly. The language is getting younger, and that is a hopeful sign.
We also know that half the Welsh speakers live in the north and west of Wales—the so-called heartland areas—and that half live in the south and east, which are not generally regarded as Welsh-speaking strongholds. However, there are more Welsh speakers in Cardiff than in Llyn and Eifionydd in my constituency, and more in Swansea than in Dwyfor. Public services are fairly easily available through the medium of Welsh in constituencies such as mine, but they are not so easily found in other areas where there are larger Welsh-speaking populations.
The number of Welsh learners is increasing every year, thanks to the dedicated efforts of learners and their teachers throughout Wales. I pay tribute to the National Language Centre at Nant Gwrtheyrn in my constituency. It has done remarkable work for more than 20 years.
Welsh speakers in the heartland areas perceive that the language is under threat as the number of communities where it is the everyday means of communication diminishes. The danger to the language must be taken seriously. Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and supporters of the language in Wales profoundly regret the fact that the Housing (Wales) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) promoted recently, was talked out. It was a missed opportunity.
Out-migration poses a genuine threat, as does the relatively poor economic position of Welsh speakers when compared with that of English speakers in the north and the west. A former colleague, Dr. Delyth Morris of Bangor university, undertook research that shows a direct link between Welsh speaking and a lower position in the socio-economic order. Clearly, that should be tackled.
The Welsh language is the subject of consultation by the National Assembly. I am sure that all hon. Members look forward to its conclusions. We also look forward to sufficient resources being made available to carry out any recommendations. Resources are crucial. Any conclusions that the National Assembly reaches about further legislation will be especially interesting to hon. Members. I hope that if it recommends further legislation, a way will be cleared for it here.
The legislative history of the Welsh language is illuminating. The Act of Union of 1532 aimed to expunge
"all sinister usages and customs",
that is, speaking Welsh. It was a matter of pride to me as a younger man to be notorious for such "sinister usages and customs".
The Act also states:
"No person who uses the Welsh speech or language should have or enjoy any manner of office or fees in the realm of England or Wales or any of the King's dominions."
That led to centuries of keeping the language under the hatchet, the denial of basic human rights, and terrorising children merely for speaking their language.
926
Matters progressed with the Welsh Language Act 1967. I shall not detain the House with the details of the Act, except to say that it introduced the concept of equal validity—that is, that Welsh was as valid as English. The Act, however, contained the statement:
"In the event of a discrepancy between an English and a Welsh text, the English shall prevail."
For example, "dau a dau yn bedwar"—which means "two and two is four" in Welsh—could be supplanted by "two and two is five" in English. That is clearly ludicrous.
The Welsh Language Act 1993 states that Welsh and English should be treated on a "basis of equality". The use of Welsh is, however, qualified, in that it should be
"reasonably practicable and appropriate in the circumstances."
These issues need to be addressed, and I hope that the National Assembly will steer its recommendations in this direction, possibly with a view to legislation.
Some hon. Members might remember that the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales, when he was in this place, opposed the Welsh Language Act 1993. He said that it was a Tory Act, and that Labour would act differently in government. That was the last we heard of that promise, but we shall see what comes from the review by the National Assembly.
The 1993 Act introduced the concept of language schemes in the public sector, and public bodies throughout Wales now have plans for implementing the principles of the Act. Significantly, however, these language schemes were not extended to the private sector. It is perfectly possible and reasonable for the private sector to adopt language schemes. Indeed, the Welsh Language Board has informed me that five large, established enterprises have already done so. The emphasis on size here is crucial. Those organisations are able to absorb the costs involved, and I am sure all hon. Members will recognise that there is a cost element to ensuring that people have the basic right to use the language of their choice in communication not only with the Government but with commercial enterprises.
The problem is how to extend this best practice from the five large organisations to other commercial organisations. We see a specific role for the Welsh Language Board there, but it will need resources. Indeed, resources are the crucial element in creating the power to bring about change. The resources are the power. The three elements to language planning—I shall try to say them slowly—are legitimisation, institutionalisation and power. If we change the law, we legitimise the use of the Welsh language. If we extend the powers of the Welsh Language Board, we institutionalise it, and if we provide the resources, we provide the power for change.
6.18 pm
Mr. Wayne David: It is sometimes difficult to chart the progress of this Labour Government simply by speaking in vague generalities. So, in the short time available to me, I shall give some specific examples of how Labour is benefiting some of the poorest communities in Wales. I shall begin with the Aber valley, a small valley just north-west of Caerphilly. It contains two small communities: Abertridwr and Senghenydd, the village where the largest mining disaster of the last century occurred. This community has some of the most acute poverty, the poorest health and the lowest incomes anywhere in Wales.

927
It is significant, however, that today the community is coming together behind the National Assembly's Valleys First initiative. Resources are also coming into one of the great community institutions of Abertridwr, the YMCA. The YMCA has been massively expanded with a grant of £650,000, providing real opportunities for the community as a whole and for disadvantaged young people. The question is, where is that money coming from? Two thirds of it is from objective 1 funding. Objective 1 money is coming into south Wales and west Wales because of a deal that was struck by a Labour Government.
Only a few months ago, we heard a great deal about the lack of match funding and long delays. The reality is that we have match funding: a formula is in place that goes beyond Barnett to ensure additionality. Projects across west Wales and the valleys are materialising before our very eyes.
I mentioned the YMCA in Abertridwr, but if we extend our horizons slightly to the Caerphilly borough as a whole, we see resources going to Ystrad Mynach college to provide lifelong learning initiatives, a former colliery site in Penallta where Groundwork is taking a lead, a youth café in Bargoed with two youth workers and internet facilities, and a new business and technology centre in Tredomen where £160,000 has been provided. All those resources are meaningful and worth while.
In just one year, Caerphilly borough as a whole has received £7,485,381. That has come about not because of Plaid Cymru or the Conservatives, who argued for many years that it was not possible to get objective 1 funding. It came about because of the determination and advocacy of a Labour Government. Those practical results on the ground have come about because of Labour, and let us not forget that.
6.21 pm
Mr. Dai Havard: First, I should like to welcome my colleague and comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I, too, was in the rain, which is where my flu comes from, so I hope hon. Members will excuse me.
I want to talk about crime and disorder. Yesterday, I tried to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour orders, and the Tories tried to shout me down. I wanted to talk about the speed and frequency of their use from experience in my constituency. The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs visited my constituency recently to meet people in the community who are trying to deal with these issues. He saw the community police officers Kyle Manns and Cath Parker, who told him that they needed the tools to do the job, including help to speed up that process. That is why I want to raise this issue.
We have a strong local partnership to deal with these problems. We bring all the agencies together—the local authority, the youth justice team and the health boards—so we are able to examine the issues across the piece. One of the organisations involved is Safer Merthyr Tydfil, and we have an experience to relate from which others may learn. It helped to establish community warden schemes, and people have since moved from those agencies to Government Departments, from which has come the experience of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is replicating those schemes in England.
In my constituency, this activity is carried out by the voluntary sector. I want to make a plea. The involvement of the voluntary sector is a good thing—it is not a local
928
authority scheme—but to maintain its involvement, it needs sustained funding, and I would like that matter looked into.
The police community takes most of the action against crime and disorder, and we are experiencing the benefits of intelligence-led policing. Others across the United Kingdom should consider that approach, because it is bringing benefits. We are working in partnerships, so I do not recognise the description that was given earlier—of my community fighting itself. The trend in the United Kingdom as a whole has been for the sickness rate of police officers to go up—it is about 12 days a year—whereas in Merthyr it is coming down, to 6 or 7 days a year.
The extra resources are being used for intelligence-led policing initiatives and good management processes, and they are bearing fruit and bringing benefits. In five years, domestic burglaries in my community have been reduced by 60 per cent. There are initiatives on violent crime which we need, as we know that we have a problem, but there is a 90 per cent. detection rate in Merthyr, and that is the highest in the force. At Christmas, we ran a special scheme called "crystal clear" which reduced by 28 per cent. the amount of facial and other injuries from bottles and glasses in pubs and clubs, which all hon. Members will know about.
We are learning from our own experience and I think we have something to offer others, but we need extra help. Although so many good things are happening we still have massive problems, not least the problem of drugs. I am glad that one of my hon. Friends mentioned that earlier. We need not just enforcement and reduction measures, but better treatment facilities.
Although we require the co-operation of all Government agencies if we are to provide help, we realise that we are making the improvements we are making only because of sustained investment by the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer. Redistribution is taking place. That is something the Tories would never do, something the Liberals cannot do, and something that narrow nationalism would destroy.
6.25 pm
Mark Tami: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I too praise my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for an excellent maiden speech.
As many Members will know, in the early 1980s Deeside experienced the greatest number of redundancies ever experienced in one day. Ten thousand people lost their jobs at Shotton steelworks, and many thousands of job losses followed as a knock-on effect. The community spirit went into free fall, crime rocketed, and the hopes of youngsters were shattered. Those events became a lasting testament to the Tory Government's industrial policy—and now the Tories have the nerve to talk of being the friends of the steel industry and its work force.
Since 1980 the community and policy-makers of north-east Wales have been striving for a strong and stable economy, looking to the future rather than the past. Massive strides in industrial development and expansion have been made since the steel closures. A major component in the reconstruction has been the creation of the Deeside industrial park, in which my predecessor Lord Jones played a vital role.

929
Deeside lies on the English border, and acts as a motor for the entire economy of north Wales, Cheshire, the Wirral and Merseyside. Without the industrial park, the biggest of its kind in Europe, that would not be possible. Because we have focused on building for the future, tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs have been created in north Wales and the north-west of England. No barriers exist between the two regions, which rely on each other for growth and strength.
Yesterday's announcement by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of improvements in the north Wales link to the north-west and the M56 is excellent news, both for Alyn and Deeside and for north-east Wales in general. The route constitutes an important link in the economic bond between the north-west and north Wales, and the improvements are crucial to economic growth in the region. The National Assembly for Wales has welcomed the plans, considering them vital to economic expansion.
Last Friday, however, a panel of Assembly Members decided to rule out the expansion of the Deeside industrial park. In my view, the reason given for refusing planning permission to double the size of the park was not justifiable. The Assembly's inspector claimed that the land on which the park would be expanded was of high quality, and that the area's farming industry would therefore be compromised. While I fully support our farmers in Wales, we should remember that the original park was built on that land. If such a decision had been made in the 1980s, we would not have the jobs that we have today.
I wanted to speak for longer, but I know others want to contribute.
6.28 pm
Kevin Brennan: In the three minutes available to me, I will say something about some of the problems experienced by Cardiff, as Wales's capital. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has an important three-minute constitutional speech to make.
The press, early-day motions and speeches in the House often criticise Cardiff as a capital. It is frequently alleged that it sucks in resources—possibly because people in Cardiff did not vote for devolution, although the swing in the 1999 referendum was one of the largest in Wales. Cardiff, however, makes an important contribution to the economy. Members may not realise that, in 2000, 70,600 people came into Cardiff from the surrounding communities to work each day. The fact that those people went home and spent money in their communities represents a vital contribution to the south Wales economy. It is impossible to separate Cardiff s economy from that of the rest of south Wales; south Wales would be a much poorer place without that vibrant economy.
Cardiff still has problems, however. Levels of unemployment in my constituency are frequently among the highest in Wales. Month after month, communities such as Ely in my constituency are in the top four when it comes to deprivation—although I see that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) finds that amusing.
930
There are real housing problems in my area. Many newspaper column inches are devoted to the problems of rural housing in Wales, but those problems pale into insignificance when compared with the housing problems in Cardiff. House prices in my constituency are very high. Ironically, many of the most expensive houses are owned by people who have come to live in Cardiff from some of the communities mentioned by Opposition Members.
That is not a bad thing: it is good, as we in Cardiff encourage diversity of language, culture, and race. However, I shall give the House a few figures relating to housing in my constituency. For example, the average price for a terraced house in Cardiff is £83,000. In the Canton area of my constituency, the average price is £102,000.
Over the past 20 years, the local council has sold 9,000 properties under the right-to-buy legislation. Of those, only 900 were flats. At the current rate, the number of council properties remaining in Cardiff will fall in a couple of years to 13,600.
I shall have to skip many of the figures that I have prepared, but there is one statistic that I must share with the House. In Canton, there were 1,119 applicants last year for three-bedroom council housing. Three properties became available in that period.
I could say much more on the subject, but I shall do so on another occasion.
6.30 pm
Ian Lucas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, and to my comrades for allowing me three minutes in which I may ruin my political career.
I intend to make what I hope is a constructive proposal with regard to the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales and Westminster. My premise is that Wales and the United Kingdom are inextricably linked. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has spoken already about the close links between north-east Wales and the north-west of England. It is clear that the future for north-east Wales, where there has been much prosperity, lies in working with the rest of the United Kingdom to take matters forward.
However, I am also a convinced devolutionist. I believe that we need to devolve as much power as possible to the different countries in the United Kingdom, and to the different regions. There are regions within Wales, and we need to think of devolution not as a nationalist matter but as a way of securing better government.
I believe that the way ahead is through the use of draft legislation. This Labour Government have successfully pioneered what most hon. Members agree is a good way of improving scrutiny. We need to consider more draft legislation, especially Bills relating to Wales that come to us prior to Second Reading. I think that all hon. Members would agree that those Bills need to be looked at more closely.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already spoken about the National Assembly for Wales and Westminster looking at Bills in parallel. I do not see why there should be anything to prevent the National Assembly and hon. Members with Welsh constituencies from looking at draft legislation together in a Joint

931
Committee. In that way, the people involved could present suggestions and discuss matters in a positive manner, before a Bill reached Second Reading.
I believe that it would be important for the discussion taking place at that stage that no vote would be held in such a Joint Committee. Proposals put forward by the Wales Office and the Welsh Assembly Government should be considered in a Joint Committee consisting of members of the Assembly and Members of Parliament. The opportunity to meet members of the Welsh Assembly in that way would be very positive, for us and—more importantly—for the people whom we represent.
If we are going to make devolution work, we must start a dialogue for the benefit of the people whom we represent. I believe that the proposal that I am floating is a starting point for discussion. I am a new Member and I want to try to make the situation better, which I think can be done. I would like hon. Members of all parties to talk about the issue and try to improve matters.
6.35 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: I am making a guest appearance at the Dispatch Box tonight—perhaps I could use the phrase "famous for 12 and a half minutes". It is a delight to be back at the Dispatch Box at a time when Wales is doing better. That is nothing to do with the Secretary of State or the Government, because I am not talking about the Welsh economy, the health service, tourism or agriculture—not even a video referee could hide the Government's lack of progress in those areas. Incidentally, were it not for the video referee and the enthusiasm of Scott Quinnell, Wales would be going to Saturday's game against Italy one up and on their way to the six nations championship.
The Secretary of State referred with some glee to the general election result, but I must remind him that there was a 6 per cent. fall in the Labour vote in Wales. In his own constituency, there was a 5.25 per cent. swing to the Conservatives. The Labour vote in Wales fell by 220,000, or a quarter of the people who voted Labour in 1997. I remind the Under-Secretary, too, that the Conservative party is still, in electoral terms, the second party in Wales, with 50 per cent. more votes than the next party on the list.
Much of what the Secretary of State said was fairly predictable. Much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) had to say, by contrast, was very much to the point, especially what he said about the grotesque favouritism shown to Mr. Mittal's offshore activities at the expense of the Welsh steel industry.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)—for the Secretary of State's benefit, there was a 4.05 per cent. swing to the Conservatives in that constituency—talked about the health service in Wales. I remind him of the Government's record: there are 4,000 people in Wales who have been waiting more than 18 months for treatment, and since 1997 there has been an 850 per cent. rise in the number waiting for their first appointment in an out-patients department.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made an interesting, varied and sometimes wandering speech. He took the moral high ground, almost oblivious of the activities of the leader of his party in Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps I should make myself clear: I mean the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Welsh Assembly.
932
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made a worthy maiden speech, following his predecessor, Sir Ray Powell, although sometimes I felt that he may have pushed the limits of political controversy. He has succeeded an excellent Member of Parliament and I am sure that he, too, will serve the people of Ogmore well.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made some predictable points. He made serious points on objective 1, which I will come to in a moment, and then made a predictable plea for a larger block grant.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what the swing against the Conservatives was in my constituency?
Mr. Walter: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has got the better of me, but I should point out that I am still waiting for the bottle of champagne that I should have been awarded in the Adoption and Children Bill Standing Committee for the best pronunciation of his constituency by an Opposition Member.
I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) that we have yet another Gower boy—the hon. Member for Ogmore in the House. The hon. Member for Gower made an impassioned speech on the problems of the cockle industry in the Loughor estuary, and I am now better informed on diarrhetic shellfish poisoning than I was at the beginning of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) gave a clear and concise view of the Welsh economy, and discussed growth in Wales during a period of considerable change under a Conservative Government. I was particularly impressed by his commitment to the small business sector; and in pointing to the divergence of the English and Welsh economies he highlighted the different policies on business rates.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who is Chairman of the Select Committee, talked about the plight of Wrexham and the potential for city status, and about university status for the North East Wales institute. At one stage, I thought that he was going to ask for a new underground system and international airport for Wrexham. I was concerned about his point about bias on S4C. I am not sure that I have ever noticed bias. Certainly, I, an English-speaking MP, have been included on its programmes. I have always admired its tremendously helpful coverage outside Wales, particularly its Saturday evening club rugby programme, even if the subtitles are about two minutes behind the action.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) made a good speech on the interaction between the environment and industry, and strayed into the subject of wind farms and renewable energy. As always, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke with passion on women's policy and prisons policy. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made an old-fashioned nationalist—socialist, even—contribution, but he gave a very good trailer for next week's "Mittalgate" debate, which we await with interest.
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made a good speech on urban renewal. Uncharacteristically, he did not mention the Tories once, which was a refreshing and intelligent development. My hon. Friend

933
the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) told us of the fate of his daffodil, for which the Liberal Democrats were, I think, responsible. None the less, he gave a key speech on crime and the fears of ordinary people. His plea for better policing and use of the specials was very welcome.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) struggled to say something positive about employment in his constituency under a Labour Government. I am afraid that the speeches by the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), for Caerphilly (Mr. David), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) were somewhat curtailed by the numbers who wanted to speak.
Two factors have dominated the past year in Wales, one of which must be foot and mouth disease. Some 118 farms were devastated by confirmed outbreaks, but the impact was far wider, affecting the entire agricultural sector and the communities in which those farms are located. We all know about the number of goats, pigs, cattle and sheep that had to be slaughtered. That was bad enough, but the businesses that depend on those farms and on agriculture have suffered as a result of the disease, as has tourism throughout Wales. As we maintain calls for a ban on substandard imports into this country, there must also be a very real effort to ensure that we hold a public inquiry into the entire foot and mouth outbreak.
The second factor is the economy, which we discussed. Other hon. Members spoke about job losses and manufacturing, and many spoke about objective I money. It is right that we should continue to say, as I have said before, that no new United Kingdom Treasury money was committed to objective 1. There was new European money, but the other money had to come from existing budgets. Now we are witnessing a very slow development of objective 1. The notion that inertia has gained its own momentum takes on new meanings when it comes to the allocation of objective 1 money. After two years, business in Wales is exasperated and frustrated that less than 3 per cent. of the allocated funds has been spent.
By the next St. David's day debate the focus will be on the National Assembly elections, and the people of Wales will be able to pass judgment on a second term of Labour Government in London and the cosy Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in Cardiff. It will be a judgment on the National Assembly building, a judgment on Corns and Mittal, a judgment on education in Wales, a judgment on foot and mouth, a judgment on crime and a judgment on the national health service in Wales. I will make no predictions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but I can tell the House that, as far as the people in Wales to whom I speak are concerned, time is running out for Labour in Wales.
6.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): May I at the outset give a temporary welcome to the stand-in on the Conservative Front Bench, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter)?
The debate has demonstrated again the depth of experience and knowledge of Welsh Members and the importance that we collectively attach to this special day of debate. The first such debate was graced by the words

934
of Nye Bevan and I know that all parties in the House will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the new Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who spoke so well today in the tradition of Nye Bevan, outlining the practical politics demonstrated by democratic socialism. His predecessor Sir Ray Powell will be missed, and I join all those who paid tribute to Ray today. He has a fitting successor in my hon. Friend, who in his maiden speech spoke movingly about his constituency and his people, for whom I have no doubt he will be a doughty champion in the coming years. He spoke of the real issues and concerns that affect real people.
This day of debate continues to be an important one for Welsh Members, as demonstrated by the fact that 18 Members have already taken part. Indeed, the Welsh contribution to the affairs of the House continues to grow in importance. Many Conservative Members predicted that devolution would leave Members from Wales with little to do, but the past three years have shown how wrong they are. Devolution has in fact increased the amount of Welsh business in the House. Most major public service Bills, such as those that we recently discussed concerning education and reform of the national health service, contain significant Wales-only clauses, and in the national health service (Wales) Bill, which the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, we shall be discussing a Wales-only Bill. The contribution to the House by Welsh Members remains strong and vibrant and will continue to be so in this, the Parliament of a united Britain.
I thank the spokesman for the main Opposition party, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for his kind and generous tribute to Ray Powell. As I said, I thank all colleagues for their comments to Ray. I am afraid that afterwards, the hon. Gentleman took the usual tack down hill to one of his rants. He gave us a catalogue of horrors from the national health service and spoke about the problems of waiting lists, but the fact is that more people are being treated by the health service in Wales. One of the things that we shall need to do if we are to tackle the problems of waiting lists and improve the health service in Wales is to put in resources and reform. When we put in the resources, Conservative Members said that we were being reckless. When we proposed the reforms, they voted against the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. We remember what the Tory years involved in Wales—cuts in the number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the Welsh economy. Like so many Conservative Members, he talks down the Welsh economy. He and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) talked about the problems that the manufacturing economy in Wales faces. The hon. Gentleman frequently uses cuttings from the Western Mail. I would not be without my cuttings from the Western Mail either. I have a copy of a report published in the business section of the Western Mail, which states:
"The economic slowdown is showing distinct signs of thawing with manufacturers reporting their highest level of optimism over future profits for two years, according to research from Cardiff Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber's latest quarterly economic survey shows that the marked downturns in domestic sales, exports and business confidence in previous quarters have reversed.
Confidence amongst manufacturers in improving profitability over the next year has risen dramatically".
That is the true picture of the future economy in Wales.

935
I note that in this evening's Evening Standard the Governor of the Bank of England has said:
"The economy has turned the corner and is starting to show clear signs of recovery."
It is important that we all recognise that we have had knocks and job losses in Wales, but it is also important that, rather than talking Wales down, we boost it. We have confidence in a new dynamic and energetic Wales—a Wales that has a rich heritage, a strong economy and a good future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) spoke very well—and authoritatively, of course—on health matters. He welcomed the fact that spending on the NHS in Wales is three or four times above the rate of inflation. He spoke with authority because, as the first Labour Minister in the Wales Office after the 1997, he started to stop the rot in the NHS in Wales that the Tories had left us. We owe him a debt of gratitude for that.
I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for his tribute to Ray Powell. The hon. Gentleman went on to give a most interesting exposé of the new politics. I do not know much about the Liberal Democrats' new politics, but I know about being the victim of Liberal Democrat tactics. I was the Labour candidate in the 1992 general election campaign, fighting in Richmond in west London, and the Liberal Democrats carried out market research into the fact that I am Welsh. They asked people whether they were troubled that the Labour candidate was from Wales or was Welsh. All their literature throughout that campaign referred to the fact that I am Welsh. That is why I am not sure what their new politics involves.
I will ensure that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) receives a full response to the questions that he has asked. Many of those issues were raised at the evidence sessions of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which I believe will publish its report on objective 1 in October. The key role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State played in ensuring that additional funding has been provided, through Barnett-plus, to support our objective 1 initiatives must not be underestimated. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the case for recognising structural funds outside the Barnett formula was part of the last spending review. I further remind him that, on that occasion, the Government stood by Wales and provided the extra funding that we needed, despite speculation to the contrary.
At Question Time yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) raised an issue about the cockle fishery problems in Gower. I am aware of that problem. I will take on board the points that he has made and I shall certainly ensure that he is fully involved in any response on those issues that I receive from colleagues in other Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who does a tremendous job as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, said how well the emergency services responded when he was involved in a near-fatal accident recently. That is the point. When push comes to shove, we have some first-class public services. They are some of the best in the world, and we should be proud of them.
My hon. Friend also made some points about Wrexham gaining city status. I welcome the interest that has certainly been shown in the competition throughout Wales
936
for city status. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor hopes to announce the names of the new cities in the United Kingdom in March. My hon. Friend also spoke about the North East Wales institute's hopes of becoming a university, and I wish those involved well in their efforts. I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes about S4C, and I have no doubt that they will be taken on board by S4C in due course. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) recalled our history of environmental impoverishment, which I understand, as I come from the mining valleys of south Wales. My valleys are green again, as are the valleys across Wales, but I share the hon. Gentleman's commitment to ensuring that this gift of nature which mankind has now had a hand in retrieving and improving is made secure. It is right to describe the Welsh environment as one of the jewels in the Welsh crown.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke about issues related to hunting and welcomed the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House today. I share my hon. Friend's concerns about community sentencing and tagging, and I note her points. She has been a strong champion of women's rights, and I take on board her point about how we care for and handle women prisoners in Wales. She also spoke about domestic violence, which is a serious matter. I think that she was the only Member who raised the issue in relation to its effects on children. Too many incidents of domestic violence go unreported. Our clear message must be that domestic violence must be reported so that the services can respond and so that families are protected.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) contributed a series of smears and innuendos, to which he may want to return in the debate next week. I noted that he had not been speaking for more than five minutes before he had to start retracting some of his innuendoes, which is not untypical. I also note that he thought of himself as a prodigal son of the Labour party, and talked about socialism. Let me tell him this: when people from my party were fighting fascists in Spain, the founder of his party was declaring his admiration for Hitler and Mussolini.
Adam Price rose—
Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) welcomed the success of objective 1 and the changes that we have made to the heritage lottery fund.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) talked about the rise in violent crime. In fact, there has been a fall in violent crime in England and Wales in the past five years. I remind him that in the last year of the Conservative Government there was a 9.2 per cent. increase in violent crime in Wales.
Contributions were also made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Caerphilly (Mr. David), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). I am sorry that I am not able to respond to all of their points.
In the year since we last met in this forum, the people of Wales delivered their verdict on Toryism and nationalism in the general election. What a verdict it was.

937
The Tories were not required and very few nationalists were wanted. That will be the case in the Assembly elections, too. Why did the people of Wales reject Toryism and nationalism? Because neither have anything to offer our country. The Tory campaign had nothing to offer, and neither does the Tory Front Bench. The Tories tell us that our public services can never be improved, only privatised. They tell us that public services are destined for disaster and that the state can never help—it must only be rolled back. They scour the world for specious examples to back their case. We say that services can and will be improved, and we are not afraid to take the difficult decisions to make that happen. We have delivered the investment in public services that the Tories said was reckless, and we will deliver the reforms that the Tories say are impossible.
Nationalism remains a pale reflection of Toryism in Wales. The Tories and the nationalists both say that we cannot build a stronger Wales. The Tories blame public servants, while the nationalists—daffodil Tories—blame the English. They are welcome to each other. Wales does not want them, and neither do we. The brave new dawn of the nationalists that was predicted only months ago has turned into an endless nightmare. They have a weak and ineffective leader who is unable to take control or lead his party anywhere. Once again, we see the clear parallel between Toryism and nationalism. One party cannot decide whether to embrace or extinguish Thatcherism, while the other cannot decide whether to love or leave the language extremists. Both parties, though, are united by a narrow xenophobia—fear of the outsider.
Wales is growing in economic strength and confidence. It is doing so as part of the world's fourth strongest economy and the world's largest single market, but it is also proud of its traditions of solidarity and care. It was no accident that the national health service was founded by a Welshman—indeed, a man from my county of Monmouthshire. It was no accident that in June Wales returned a Labour Government with a clear mandate for investment in and reform of our public services.
We will be true to that mandate. We represent the true spirit of radicalism and reform in Wales. We will continue to turn Britain from the country that it became under the Tories into a country of which we can all be proud. My colleagues and I are determined that this Labour Government will deliver on our manifesto pledges, as we are doing now, throughout the country. We will ensure that the people of Wales and the people of Britain gain the services that they deserve and that our country needs. I have no doubt that Labour will succeed in the Assembly elections and go on to win a third general election.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITIONS

  Foot and Mouth
  7 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I have the honour to present a petition of citizens of the United Kingdom amounting to 250,000 signatures supported officially by the Countryside Alliance, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and, of course, a large number of citizens of the United Kingdom.
  The petition declares
  that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease has caused extensive damage, hardship and disruption to the farming and rural community, to the tourist industry and other businesses throughout the United Kingdom with consequent economic loss to those directly and indirectly affected and the economy of the United Kingdom.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons insist that Her Majesty's Government as a matter of urgent public importance, hold a fully independent public inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 into the causes, progress and administration of the foot and mouth outbreak of 2000/01, the adequacy of measures taken to investigate and to remedy the outbreak and with terms of reference to make recommendations (a) for the prevention of any recurrence, (b) with respect to financial compensation and relief and the application of European Union rules relating thereto and (c) for the future of agricultural and related interests and those of the rural tourist business community and the environment.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and my petition is along the same lines as his. The House will know that Cumbria was the county that was worst affected by the foot and mouth outbreak.
  This petition to the House is the petition of farmers, hoteliers, families and residents of south Cumbria, and carries some 2,000 signatures. The petition declares that the signatories
  believe a full independent public inquiry into the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic is needed on the grounds of establishing the effectiveness of the actions taken in combating the disease and to ensure that appropriate lessons to prevent future foot and mouth outbreaks are learned.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Prime Minister to heed public opinion in south Cumbria and set up a full independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Firearms Crime (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
7.3 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of gun crime, which troubles many Londoners, including a great many of my constituents. I have represented my constituency for 14 years. There is much to be proud of in Hackney. We have enormous creativity and culture, especially in arts and music. There are more artists per square mile in Hackney than in any other part of London. For generations, the area has been a staging post for economic migrants, and we are proud of that. Those migrants have gone on from Hackney to contribute to society as a whole.
Hackney has fairly good race relations, especially when one considers the diversity of its people. Hasidic Jews live side by side with people who have west African and Caribbean origins. Every language and nationality under the sun can be found in Hackney. When we compare our race relations with what happened in some northern towns over the summer, it is clear that we have much to be proud of because we have achieved genuine integration. Young people in Hackney mix and match each other's food, slang and dance music to astonishing effect.
But gun crime is casting a terrible shadow over my constituents. Hackney residents who have got used to the incompetence of the council, who glory in the multiculturalism, are genuinely frightened of gun crime. Gun crime in London, certainly until recently, has been largely confined to three hotspots: Lambeth and Southwark, Brent, especially the Harlesden area, and the Hackney and Tottenham area. One stretch of road in Clapton in my constituency is known as murder mile.
My constituents are frightened of waking up to find a corpse outside their house, as people have written to me to describe, or of being caught in gunfire. We have had cases of gunmen shooting at each other from speeding cars. One car came off the road, ploughed into a group of innocent people queueing for a bus, and people suffered serious injury thereby. We have had cases of disputes among young people at a party when a gunshot has gone through a wall, and a completely innocent person in another room who had nothing to do with the dispute has been shot.
We have had cases where bullets have gone through windows, missing a child sitting in a chair by inches. We have had cases of somebody getting into a dispute with a doorman at a club, going to get a machine gun and spraying a queue of innocent people who are waiting to go into the club. People pull guns in Hackney because of a dispute over a girl or merely to demonstrate how hard they are. Above all, my constituents are frightened of a phone call to say that their son, boyfriend, relative, neighbour, or even some young man whom they saw every day on the way to work has caught a bullet and is bleeding to death.
That has obviously been of some concern to me in recent years. I am working closely with Operation Trident in Hackney to increase community co-operation. One thing that people are genuinely terrified of is being a witness to a crime. I am working with Operation Trident to maximise co-operation in the widest community.
940
Operation Trident has a gallery of photographs of some of the criminals who have died in shootings. When one sees the pictures of those young men—younger than anyone in the House—lying on a pavement in a pool of blood, sometimes with their brains seeping out, one thinks not only that that has caused violence and mayhem for my constituents, but what a tragedy and a waste of life. These young men are dead even before the age that many young people leave university—and for what? That has made me focus on the issue as never before. What kind of community are we, what kind of people are we becoming, when young men hold their lives so cheaply that they will risk death? One can purchase a murder in Hackney for a very few thousand pounds.
In London, and possibly in other metropolitan areas such as Moss Side in Manchester, we face a different type of gun crime from that known in the past. Then, guns were the province of a specialised type of professional criminal, who took his gun to pursue a particular type of specialised crime and then, largely, took it home. It was interesting that those who tried to rob the millennium dome—it would have been one of the largest robberies in recent times—were not carrying guns. Professional criminals rarely carry guns because they know that being found with a gun at the scene of a crime automatically increases their sentence. Although the millennium dome robbers planned to take millions of pounds worth of diamonds, they went with nail guns and ammonia.
Walking the streets of Hackney and elsewhere in London, we have the young man who is steeped in a gun culture. He is routinely armed and will use his gun not just to pursue a specific criminal activity but in domestic disputes, to show how tough he is and because he has lost his temper with someone in a nightclub. The difference between professional criminals who are armed for a specific purpose and the kind of young man who is absorbed in a lawless, valueless gun culture, who walks the streets of Hackney, Battersea, Lambeth and Southwark, multiplies many times over the risk to innocent people, young people who are simply out enjoying themselves and people just walking the streets.
Let me say a word about "yardies"—a term much used in the media, but not one that I like. It is used to refer to a certain type of black gun criminal associated with the cocaine trade. I dislike the term because it is unhelpful and misleading about the nature of the problem. It suggests that all the people in question originate in Jamaica, but the police say that more than half the deaths are not of Jamaican criminals but of British-born blacks, many not even of Jamaican origin. My parents are from Jamaica and I am a proud Jamaican; I do not like a term that smears Jamaica.
The behaviour of these young men, the lawlessness, the gun culture, the criminality and the violence ultimately stem from wider problems of social exclusion that can be dealt with only in the very long term. Resources are needed for youth diversion and youth clubs. We must also examine educational failure and its links to social exclusion, especially of young black men. That is something that concerns me greatly.
Having got financial support from the Mayor of London, I am holding a conference on 16 March entitled "London Schools and the Black Child" which is to examine precisely the roots of educational failure of black children. When black children—children of African and Afro-Caribbean descent—enter the school system aged

941
five, they do as well as white and Asian children. By age 11, their performance starts to drop off, and by age 16, their achievement—especially that of black boys—has collapsed. We have to get to the roots of that problem. I have no doubt that the road to a tragic end taken by many of the young men in Operation Trident's rogues' gallery of corpses lying in a pool of blood started with educational failure.
The House might be interested to know that we started by organising a conference for 500 people, but by this morning my staff had registered 1,400 people and had to close the conference to any more. People want to talk about the issue. At another time, I shall talk to Education Ministers about how the Government need to focus specifically on the way in which the school system is failing children of African and Afro-Caribbean descent. It is a complex issue—often, children newly arrived from Africa do better than second or third generation British black children—and I do not seek to oversimplify, but I believe that an underlying problem is educational failure in inner London and the collapse of the school career of many black children.
To return to the specific issue of gun crime, there are of course problems of social exclusion. I and people like me have to work with the community to make sure that the community is co-operating and that the public are aware of victim protection schemes, which Trident operates. Victim protection is needed: in a recent case, a young woman sought to give evidence against black gun criminals; she was shot at point-blank range and put in hospital; she left hospital against the advice of police and went to Jamaica for a funeral, where she was again shot at point-blank range by the same criminal network. She returned to this country and her brother was kidnapped, but with bravery that I do not believe I could show, this girl gave evidence in court and a number of people were put behind bars. None the less, people hear such stories.
The point about gun crime in Hackney that my constituents find so distressing is that in those communities it is no secret who is committing those crimes. All the gun criminals have girlfriends, or mothers, or friends they boast to, or families at home who wash their shirts. Who is committing the crimes is no secret even to the police. The problem is getting people to come to court and bear witness. That is why I am pleased to work with my local police, to liaise with the community and to improve the witness protection scheme so that we can get convictions.
None the less, there are things that the Government should be doing. I call on Ministers to support the Mayor of London's measures to achieve a year-on-year increase in the number of police, comparable to the number in New York city. Council tax payers in London are ready to pay more council tax for that purpose—money for the police is the one aspect of the current budget that has not been disputed by any member of the Greater London Assembly—but ultimately moneys from general taxation will be required.
I was interested to read that the Home Secretary apparently threatened the Metropolitan police with intervention, reminding them that he had powers to intervene in under-performing forces. While the whole of London supports the Home Secretary in his concern about under-performing police forces, I hope that in stepping in
942
to intervene in the Metropolitan police, he would consult the Mayor and the Metropolitan Police Authority. The Government could help to strengthen the Metropolitan police's performance management regime and empower the commissioner to hire and fire his own management. The Metropolitan Police Authority is interested in introducing a system similar to the New York ConStat system so that crime could be closely monitored locally, with resources redirected quickly, but that would mean a much clearer chain of command for the Metropolitan police. Currently, there is the Mayor, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Home Secretary and the boroughs; legislation may eventually be required because we need a much clearer line of command.
It is important that the Government encourage London boroughs to prioritise firearms offences in their crime and disorder reduction strategy. I am sorry that in many boroughs where gun crime is an issue, firearms offences are still not included in such strategies. My local police officers have raised with me the difficulty of confiscating money when they find it on known drug dealers. They showed me a photograph of a young man who was not working or claiming income support who was living in a flat in Docklands and paying £1,000 a week in rent. They took a photograph of him with plastic bags full of money—he had £55,000—but having found him in the flat with the money, they had to give it back to him. That does nothing to dent the morale of drug dealers. I understand that the Proceeds of Crime Bill will make confiscation easier, but I draw the problem to the Minister's attention.
Local officers have told me that it must be easier to extradite people charged with serious crimes abroad. People are walking the streets of London who have been charged with murder in Jamaica; for all kinds of technical reasons, it has proved impossible to extradite them. Ministers should look at that problem. Another issue raised with me both locally and by Scotland Yard officers in charge of Operation Trident is the penalty for the possession of firearms. Recently, policemen charged and prosecuted someone with two loaded firearms in his waistband in the middle of London. He did not have them to shoot rabbits or for self-protection; he did 18 months, and he will get out after doing half that.
The police believe strongly that we need to raise the minimum sentence for possession of a firearm. We are not talking about the professional criminal who takes a weapon out when committing a crime, then takes it home. We are talking about young men who swagger about all day long with firearms. If we increased the minimum sentence, that would help us to intervene in the culture where a gun is almost a style accessory and would deter people from holding guns for others. People with criminal records know that it is not a good idea to be found with a gun and get people without records to hold them. If people knew that they would do a minimum of five years if they were found with a gun, they would be deterred from holding guns for others.
The police are keen that the Government should look at legislation to ban imitation firearms. That may sound like trying to get the Government to ban water pistols, but the police argue that there are different categories of imitation firearms. No one could mistake children's plastic toys for firearms. Imitation firearms look genuine, but why should anyone want such a thing? The Brocock is an imitation firearm whose shaft can be bored through

943
and converted into a gun. The police are anxious that the Government consider legislation to ban, not children's toys, but intentional imitations of firearms, especially those that can be converted into usable firearms.
There is also the question of drug mules. I do not accept for a minute the media's idea that every speck of drugs found in the British isles is imported in the stomachs and orifices of girls flying in on Air Jamaica planes. None the less, drug mules coming into the country from Jamaica is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for communities such as mine, where some of the drugs end up, it is a tragedy for Jamaica, because it taints its name and that of its airline and it is a tragedy for those girls.
Holloway prison is next door to my constituency and I have often visited it. The largest single group of foreign nationals is Jamaican—girls who have been caught as drug mules. As somebody of Jamaican origin and as chair of the British Caribbean group, I want to see something done about that trade, both in the interests of my constituents and in the interests of those women, who are often told that they will get off with a caution. Many of them—more than the number recorded—swallow the drugs and die. That trade could be choked off. After the debate, I shall seek a meeting with the Minister to discuss in more detail what middle-ranking police officers have told me can be done about the drug Mule problem.
Gun crime always runs the risk of being sensationalised by a press looking for a story for the front page—something to make people shiver in their shoes. As somebody who lives in Hackney, represents the people of Hackney, has a young son, and knows very many women in Hackney and communities like it With adolescent and male relatives, I know what fear the topic of gun crime brings to the hearts of Londoners. The police, through Operation Trident, are moving towards a solution. Through education, I and others are trying to work on the wider social issues. However, there is more that the Government could do. In particular, I stress the issues of penalties for carrying a firearm and imitation firearms.
7.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on achieving the debate. It is clearly a matter of great importance to her constituents in Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, to people across London and, unfortunately, beyond as well: we are beginning to see similar problems in cities such as Bristol.
My hon. Friend has left me a little short of time. I shall try to reply to all the main points that she made, but if I do not manage to do so, I am sure that she will understand. I shall certainly write to her and I shall be happy to have the meeting that she suggested about how to deal with stuffers and swallowers coming in on Air Jamaica flights.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the extent of the use of firearms in London. Operation Trident alone last year dealt with 18 incidents involving 21 murders and 135 incidents of non-fatal shootings. Already this year there have been five murders and 26 other shootings. My hon. Friend is obviously familiar with the work of Operation Trident. I met Commander Brown, who heads the operation, at the beginning of the month, and we discussed how such crimes could be countered more effectively.
944
My hon. Friend graphically explained that the Metropolitan police cannot be expected to deal with the problems entirely on their own. In the case of Operation Trident, they are often dealing with young men who carry firearms as part of a macho gun culture, and who are willing to use them to settle disputes over drugs and in other situations which on the face of it seem minor—for example, when disrespect has been shown. We have for many years prided ourselves on the comparatively low level of crimes involving firearms, and we are determined to counter the upward trend.
The Met have our full support in their efforts. Last year Operation Trident resulted in 442 arrests, mainly relating to firearms and possession of drugs with intent to supply, and recovered 130 firearms and associated ammunition. As a result of his worries about the level of gun crime, the Commissioner recently seconded a further 30 officers to Operation Trident and a further 20 officers to work within the shootings team of the serious and organised crime group.
Underlying much of the use of firearms is the market for drugs and especially crack cocaine. Customs, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are working together to try to reduce the amount of cocaine that is reaching the UK. Part of that work involves reducing the flow of cocaine from Jamaica, and Customs has had recent successes in preventing passengers from smuggling cocaine through Heathrow and Gatwick airports. However, I share some of my hon. Friend's concerns and I intend to examine with CIDA—Concerted Inter-agency Drugs Action—whether we are giving appropriate weight to that form of smuggling.
I know that that is neither the only nor the main method of entry for cocaine into the country. None the less, it is controlled by, and far more closely associated with, the crack cocaine market. The gun culture is also associated with that market, and it would be a little more difficult for such criminality to link in with some of the other supplies of cocaine in the country than with the small supply that is being brought in from Jamaica. As my hon. Friend said, it is brought in using women who are often as much victims as those who find themselves on the receiving end of the consequences of the drug trade in our cities. I want to explore further with the appropriate authorities whether we have got our thinking exactly right in terms of the recognition of the proportionate damage done by this form of entry of cocaine into the country.
Much more needs to be done to prevent the couriers from travelling in the first place. We are considering measures that might be taken to achieve that, including discussions with the Jamaican authorities. We also need to consider how to prevent Jamaican criminals from travelling to the UK. There is police co-operation between our jurisdiction and the authorities in Jamaica.
I understand and accept my hon. Friend's concern about terminology. I heard also what she said about the fact that a great number of these people are British-born blacks rather than Jamaicans. However, I am being told by the Metropolitan police authority—I hope that her information is the same—that a considerable element has close relations with Jamaica and is constantly returning there, and that association is a real problem. As she said, it is not the sole problem—there are other, far deeper issues—but it is a considerable part of the problem that

945
we face. I am planning to meet the Jamaican Minister of National Security and Justice when he visits the United Kingdom early next month.
Of course, we must do everything we can to reduce the opportunity for criminals to obtain firearms in the first place. We already have some of the toughest gun controls in the world, but we are committed to improving them to maintain public safety if that is necessary, and we have been working with the police to ensure good security of legally held weapons to prevent them from being stolen. We are also considering the need to establish strict controls on the deactivation standards. We want the same standards to apply throughout Europe, and we have been working closely with the European Commission to that end. Anybody who is minded to misuse guns should be left in no doubt that there are heavy penalties for these offences, including life for the most serious ones.
My hon. Friend was suggesting not necessarily that the maximum penalty was a problem in that regard, but that we might need to consider whether we should introduce minimum penalties in respect of some of these issues. I shall consult colleagues in the Home Department about the points that she made, and I agree to come back to her having thought about the consequences and the potential for some action.
Reference is often made to guns flooding the country. However, I have consulted the police, Customs and Excise and NCIS, and there is no evidence of organised or large-scale smuggling, and there appears to be no single main source of firearms held by criminals. Those sources in recent years include theft from legitimate owners, smuggling individual weapons, conversion of deactivated and replica weapons, and trophies of war brought back by service personnel.
946
My hon. Friend mentioned the Brocock. I do not know whether she realises that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs talked to the company responsible for importing the weapons. It has agreed to stop that. We must examine the regulations that affect the ability to convert weapons. It is as illegal to carry imitation weapons as to carry real ones in the sort of circumstances that my hon. Friend described. We are actively considering whether we can do more.
My hon. Friend was right to say that if we are to be effective, we cannot leave the police to struggle with the problem on their own. I know that she has not done that, and that considerable effort has been made in Brent, where community safety partnerships have been at the heart of steering a targeted policing initiative to reduce violent and drug-related crime. It is important that people such as my hon. Friend and local people work with the police to give the community maximum confidence so that it can co-operate. However, I fully understand the issues that she raised such as intimidation and the problems that arise from it.
Operation Trident was created to establish links with the community, to work with it and to bring the police closer to it in tackling problems, and in considering whether appropriate protection is offered in all cases. There is clearly a problem with getting people to come forward to give the evidence, but that is essential if we are to take effective action.
My hon. Friend called for the ability to confiscate cash. The Proceeds of Crime Bill contains strong powers to give the police and Customs and Excise the same ability to confiscate cash that is found in-country as they currently have only at the border. We have been told for a long time that that is a problem—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock.